One World Governments–Debunked!
By SlayerX3
This article which debunks the ridiculous “one world government” conspiracy nonsense in Thrive is closely related to my previous article about “world domination conspiracies,” and Muertos’s article debunking the Global Domination Agenda.
The Norm Prison
At 1:18:02 of Thrive David Icke speaks about the fear of what other people think. He cites the ridicule he went through when he lost that fear and decided to speak out. (I’m sure the ridicule has nothing to do with the things he publicly speaks being completely unfounded and insane).
He states how by dictating what is right and wrong, weird and normal, the Illuminati/GDE (Global Domination Elite) have created a prison for the population who is afraid to speak its own mind.
His main point is how these groups would use norms and social standards to keep people from stepping out and showing their “uniqueness,” for if they did the rest of the society would shun them. This would create a social prison where you’re not as afraid of the reaction from the “elites” as you are of the reaction from your relatives, friends and co-workers.
There is a problem with this line of thought, however. Social norms have existed since humans started to live in society and as society changed so did the norms. Social norms weren’t invented by some “global elite.”
I’m certain this segment is aimed towards the people who honestly believe in conspiracy theories, in an attempt to vindicate their status as social rejects.
Icke’s argument seems to equate believing in conspiracy theories–free energy and other pseudoscience–with social injustices. Like a few decades ago interracial marriage and gay marriage were taboos (in some places they still are) but the norms changed for those to be accepted.
But you can’t equate ridiculing someone’s conspiracy beliefs with social injustice. They’re not the same thing. Thrive’s and Icke’s claims have no foundation in reality, and I don’t mean the reality of what is acceptable and what is not. I mean that these beliefs have absolutely no foundation in observable facts. Gamble and Icke make absurd statements and expect people to accept them as if they were a completely valid view of the world.
If you’re an adult male who goes to a “My Little Pony” fan convention you can’t expect people not to give you weird looks. And you shouldn’t expect people to accept that shape shifting reptilians control the world, the Illuminati is responsible for everything important since the 19th century and that Elvis Presley was an alien without them thinking there is something wrong in your head. While the former is a matter of taste and generally harmless, the later represents a group of beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and is extremely harmful.
The World Government Unions
The European Union
Gamble claims the GDE has plans to split the world in several power blocks to make it easier to control. He cites the European Union and the African Union as examples and mention how the Pacific and American Union are on their way.
If I were to talk about how the European Union worked in real life it’d take an entire full length article just to do that, so I’ll summarize and show how things aren’t exactly what Gamble thinks they are.
The European Union is a loose federation of countries, that include most of Europe, with the intent to ease the movement of people and merchandise across its members’ borders. Defense is in the hands of NATO (which includes the U.S.A and Canada).
It has achieved these goals by unifying the currency, applying several legislative policies that are voted on in the EU parliament with the approval of each of its member states.
I also have to mention that the countries who have adopted the Euro as a currency are referred as the Eurozone. Some member states decided to maintain their own currency, like Sweden and the United Kingdom.
There are as many arguments against the EU as there are in favor of it. It is worth mentioning that even among the EU members it is common to disagree with each other whenever a new law or policy is to be applied.
The most recent example is the Greek financial crisis and the “austerity measures” proposed by Germany and France which are being opposed or severely criticized by several other EU members, especially Portugal, Spain and Greece.
Most of the laws (save those on importation tariffs, unions and industry regulations) aren’t directly imposed on its member states. Nor does the EU dictate the policies its members will adopt in their own countries as long as it doesn’t directly harm other members.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/HowEULawsAreMade.pdf
http://www.ngoeuconnect.ie/content.php?area=3
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/index_en.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union (This splits into several sub sections and main pages)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism
http://www.economicshelp.org/dictionary/c/criticism-eu.html
http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/04/problem-with-euro.html
This is not a unified “world government” body. It just isn’t.
The African Union
The AU is a political block to push for development within Africa’s borders, defend Africa’s interests and security and promote democratic governments and human rights.
If you have been keeping tabs on the news, you know the AU exists on paper only.
With its massive history of corruption, internal conflict and sheer incompetence, the African Union is anything but unified.
Claiming the AU has created a unified Africa is almost comical. The AU reactions to Somalia’s lawless state, Sudan’s Darfur humanitarian crisis and Libya’s civil war can only be described as totally absent.
Along the history of ethnic, religious and political conflict and with at least one war with one African state against another or a civil war within a member state occurring at least once every decade makes the African Union the exact opposite of what a unified continent should look like. Not to mention the continent is rife with poverty and disease giving the AU more important problems to deal with than trying to take over Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Problems-Plaguing-the-AU-Forces.pdf
The American Union
Gamble claims an American Union is on its way citing trade policies involving the USA, Canada and Mexico (forgetting both South and Central America).
While there are free trade treaties with those countries, there is no political will to unify the American continent. There are people who advocate a unified America much like the European Union. Politicians and citizens from left and right (see what I did there?) have vocal stands against such a union. South and Latin American countries fear more US intervention, abusive policies and lack of sovereignty and the US fears massive immigration, the loss of power in case the US dollar gets replaced by the Amero (theoretical Trans-American currency) and being saddled with the burden of solving several of those countries’ problems.
If the proposed American Union also includes the Central and South American nations, there will be even more problems than just turning the USA, Canada and Mexico into a Union.
There is a massive anti-American sentiment in South and Central America mostly due to past policies US imposed in South and Central America during the Cold War and the economic practices the US adopts which are viewed as unfair in most South and Central American nations.
There is also a strong nationalist fervor and idealism against imperialistic policies (which without doubt the Unification would be perceived as so) within South and Central American countries.
Even if you decided to unify South America into a South American Union there would be a strong political and civil resistance against it. It’s just not going to happen.
The closest thing we have is the Mercosul, which is another free-trade-treaty accepted by most of the South American countries. This is also a source of major political and economic disputes among its members.
NAFTA is currently the only integration treaty ratified by USA, Canada and Mexico. It is a political and economic treaty to promote free trade among those countries.
There is a good share of conspiracy theories regarding the creation of an North American Union, specially about the proposed NAFTA super highway (firmly opposed by Ron Paul).
Why is creating an American Union a challenge? The only fully developed countries in the Americas, economically speaking, are USA and Canada. While most European countries have similar political and economic set ups (which facilitated the creation of the EU), the American continent doesn’t have this advantage. USA’s economic policies are radically different from Canada’s and Mexico’s, let alone all the other Latin American countries. For example, Brazil has major differences with Argentina and Venezuela in how their economies function, and integrating those differences into a single power block would be a political and economic nightmare. Who would make decisions? How would anything get done?
Creating a Union would force the USA and Canada to elevate the status and the condition of all the other members, given the state of poverty the majority of the countries in the Americas are in. This alone would be a gargantuan task big enough to stop a unification process in its tracks.
In the real world, discussions about “unifying” American countries weren’t about creating a European Union-like power, but instead stimulating better cooperation and integration among the American nations using the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) as a mediator.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercosur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_currency_union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement_%28NAFTA%29_Superhighway_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/
Pacific Union
Australia is already a member of the Commonwealth and feels little need to integrate itself with the rest of Asia. Japan and China hate each other. North Korea and South Korea unification is a nightmare by itself and if you want to have an idea of how troublesome it would be creating a Pacific Union, put all the issues I mentioned in the American Union with the ones in the African Union together.
Thrive’s lack of gasp in geopolitics is astonishing. Gamble simply doesn’t understand how the world works.
One World Government and “Economic Hit Men”
At 1:20:48 Gamble shows videos of the EU leaders talking about “Global Governance,” again taking it out of context. Both videos refer to how governments all over the globe worked to avoid the worsening of the economic crisis that started in 2008 and the efforts of the G8 and G20 to cope with the economic issues. Both also deal with mentions to create a set of rules to stabilize the financing sectors across the world and the importance of the G20 in future policy making.
Gamble claims groups like the World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the IFM are tools for the GDE to impose their plans.
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfnTOm3xZp0&feature=related (The part shown on Thrive is at 0:25:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIFvwwIFZ58
The “Economic Hit Man”
Gamble introduces the controversial book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. The book is about how governments and corporations employ “economic hit men” to bribe leaders in undeveloped countries and “Jackals” to assassinate leaders who don’t comply.
This book was met with a lot of criticism, from how poorly written and simplified it was to the absence of citations and complete vagueness in its assertions.
The book itself is Perkins’s account of the job he did. As for its veracity, basically he says “trust my word on this one.” The book has also been criticized for several inaccuracies regarding policy making and how intelligence agencies work. For example, attributing the NSA (cryptography and code breaking) to an economic organization.
Perkins has explored the conspiracy theory ground both in his book and in his interviews. As result he has become popular in conspiracy theory circles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_%28author%29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html
http://www.putnampit.com/reviews/hitman2.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/business/yourmoney/19confess.html?pagewanted=all (The text of the interview I mentioned, which is the clip shown in Thrive)
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/February/20060202155604atlahtnevel6.165713e-02.html
The reverse Hanlon’s razor
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.“
The above is an idea called Hanlon’s Razor. Gamble and Ms. Fitts subvert Hanlon’s Razor by claiming the government is not only using its incompetence as a facade to hide its plans, but is actually extremely competent in furthering its plans.
I could fill this article with examples of how this is wrong, but I’m just going to cite the latest. SOPA and PIPA, law that would have given corporations and the government a green light to do as they wanted with the Internet, didn’t pass despite heavy political support and corporate lobbyism. If the government can’t pass laws like this, how are they supposed to create a “one world government?”
Pyramids of information
Right after this, David Icke discusses the “pyramid organization” where the knowledge of the real intentions of the GDE decrease the further down the pyramid you go. Icke cites the Manhattan Project as an example of how such big secret can be kept hidden.
Bad example, the Manhattan Project did have leaks. They stemmed from accidents, incompetence and active espionage. If that was the case how did Gamble stumble with all his “evidence” and lived to tell the tale?
https://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch1_f.htm
There is also a big difference between the Manhattan Project and the kind of “secret” Icke claims is being hidden here. The Manhattan Project was a plan to win the war, which everybody thought was a good goal. People were not likely to object to something that would win the war for their side and save millions of lives. With the GDE plan though, you have to convince people to do something they wouldn’t otherwise want to do. You just couldn’t do it. Also, keep in mind the Manhattan Project existed for a very short period of time (1942 to 1945). You didn’t have to keep it secret for very long. The GDE has to be kept secret over decades or even centuries. It just wouldn’t work.
Conclusion
I’ve shown here how these “one world government” theories are false. Gamble and Icke don’t understand how the world really works, they take information out of context and hope nobody will notice. I noticed.
World Domination Conspiracies–Debunked!
By SlayerX3
This article presents more on the “Global Domination Agenda” at the heart of Thrive and why the assertions in the film related to this conspiracy theory are ridiculous.
Global Domination Agenda and the New World (lack of) Order
Roughly at 1:05:00 we have Mr. Gamble giving a speech claiming the secret agenda of the banking elite is nothing but “total global domination.” Gamble states for the Global Domination Agenda to work the powerful elites would need to have total control of key sectors of society. Such as the money (Central banks and such), natural resources, energy (save “free energy”), health (save natural alternative medicine) and the media. He also alleges that the US government is hell bent on controlling the internet (more on that later, but I have to add thanks to the democratic process it has failed to do so). Gamble also adds how the PATRIOT Act (won’t argue much with this but the PATRIOT Act was hardly effective), surveillance and RFID chips (useless for anything but control of inventory and pets).
He alleges that the Big Brother police state isn’t coming, it has already arrived. In a bait and switch argument he states the members of several wealthy families, such as the Rockefellers, Rothschild and so forth, are part of a secret group. Supposedly, while most of the members of these families are not aware of this, the headmasters are pulling the strings without their knowledge.
Gamble then proceeds to drop some names of royal family members and high influence people to make a point, implying they are the headmasters behind the global domination agenda. People like the David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of Netherlands. Needless to say this falls more under speculation and guessing than verifiable fact.
One of the pieces of “evidence” he brings to make his point credible is the symbolism of the Eye of Providence (A.K.A the “all seeing eye of God) used on the U.S. $1 bill, in Masonry images and by other justice and intelligence agencies worldwide.
The problem with this kind of argument is the blatant use of unfounded implications. The Eye of Providence is a quite old symbol which is mostly used to represent religious zeal, like a shepherd watching over his flock. The Eye of Providence is used in the same manner by groups heavily influenced by the Christian church (especially regarding the Holy Trinity).
Mr. Gamle also shows several companies using eyes on their logos–conveniently forgetting that most of the examples he listed are from audio-visual companies like CBS and AOL.
Gamble claims one of the uses of the this information is to promote anti-Semitism by labeling the Global Domination Agenda as “a Jewish agenda.” Perhaps the irony was lost to Gamble, but having the overtly anti-Semitic David Icke as a key figure in Thrive and then drop this gem on the viewer was a little too much for me to bear. Given how much anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories tend to overlap, this is ironic.
Later both Gamble and Edward Griffin speak about how after the secret elite consolidated their wealth they aimed for the next big thing: power. The power to rule people and their freedom as they see fit under the premise of “we’re more intelligent than you and we know how you should live better than you.”
After that there are several clips from politicians like George Bush, Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger using the phrase “New World Order”. This is another case of quote mining. Muertos already talked about this in this blog.
One of the reasons why this footage has been carefully edited is to change its meaning. Showing the clips in full would only undermine Gamble’s statements because it would show that the New World Order phrase refers not to the Global Domination Agenda but about economic plans and free market trade (Henry Kissinger) and the state of the power balance post Gulf War (George Bush). The “New World Order” is not about creating one single governmental entity to rule the world as Gamble implies in Thrive.
Next the movie gives us this quote from Pope Benedict: “There is urgent need for a true world political authority.” In a rare case of quote accuracy in Thrive it turns out the Pope’s quote is legit, but it doesn’t mean what Gamble wants you think it means. The Pope’s quote is completely against the Global Domination Agenda and the elites, and it condemns the accumulation of wealth and criticizes the ways globalization can be badly directed. In fact the Pope says this can “lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis”
Here is the full quote:
“There is a strongly felt need… for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth… there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”
The rest of the quote and the context is in this link. The pope wasn’t defending the creating of a super state, but the re-management of the UN and other groups like the FMI to help the redistribution of wealth and lessen poverty. This is a much more benevolent goal than anything Thrive suggests, and it is the opposite of the what the elite would want.
After abusing the Pope’s quote, Mr. Gamble alleges the world is moving towards a more militarized and authoritarian rule. He conveniently uses footage from North Korea and Pakistan trying to make you think about the worst places to live on Earth.
In reality the world has been advancing by leaps and bounds against militarization. The European nations–with a special mention of Germany–have shrunk their military capabilities. The Arab Spring has led to the downfall of dictatorships in North Africa and Middle East. Even countries like Myanmar (Burma) have taken measures to depose their military rulers in favor of reforms to open the way for a civil government (I’d also like to add this may not work as it is under process in a unstable region).
There is a clear picture of how people worldwide do not want to have a military or a militarized government.
Conspiracy theorists are (mentally?) challenged
Kimberly Gamble later makes an “observation” about how bringing up conspiracy theory topics is a “socially challenging” and whoever does is prone of being ridiculed.
This wouldn’t be the case if conspiracy theorists didn’t show/make use of:
- Misquoting, just as Thrive does (Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush).
- Quote mining, just as Thrive does (see the quote from Pope Benedict).
- Circular logic, unfounded accusations, mass guessing, selective editing, and trivializing.
- Failure to understand the laws of nature (physics, math, biology and chemistry). Thrive does this too by relying on people like Nassim Haramein whose reputation is built on wildly inaccurate conceptions of physics.
- Failure to provide conclusive and observable evidence.
- Dismissing rebuttals and criticism as “trolls” or “paid disinformation agents.”
Gamble reflects to the current state of the world where there is a major disparity between rich and poor, there is an use of power to keep the plebes in control and debt as a form of slavery.
Now there is something interesting in Thrive, actually a characteristic shared by most if not all conspiracy theory movies and “documentaries”: it is completely American centric, it was aimed towards the American population and nowhere else.
Mr. Gamble cites the US’s history of armed revolt and free speech as a hurdle to the Global Domination Agenda, completely ignoring the rest of the world, including totalitarian countries and/or bankrupt countries where the Global Domination Elite (if they existed) could implement their plans easily and without much trouble.
Maybe I’m overreacting as I write this–I am not an American–but for Gamble and crew it seems that USA is (most of) the world and if you subdue the USA you’ll be able to do with the rest of the world. This completely disregards all the countries and populations that have an anti-western and/or anti-American sentiment. The world is a place where no one agrees with anyone. Thrive focuses on groups that have power and influence in USA and Europe but not anywhere else. In the USA last case of real armed revolt was during the Civil War 150 years ago. In the Middle East and South Asia cases of armed revolt are occurring this very year, South America is virtually starting its second generation of people who have not witnessed the authoritarian dictatorships we faced in the 20th century, with most of the able bodied population having vivid memories of what it was like and they don’t want it to come back (I myself was born at the start of the democratic governments that succeeded the dictatorships in my country).
Even if the Global Domination Elite had seized control of the continental USA they wouldn’t be any better in much of the world considering that some countries have made resisting western powers a tradition, and they have been doing that for generations.
Pushing for a global currency and the global tax
Global currency
There are a few problem with this. First at 1:25:00 Gamble states the US dollar is being devalued, more correctly was being devalued, as it is regaining strength in face of other currencies like the Brazilian Real, the Chilean Peso, the Russian Ruble and even being almost toe to toe in value with the Euro.
Second the I.M.F one currency wasn’t meant to be used as Gamble implied to be. First, it isn’t meant to be used as a daily currency for citizens but as a reserve for countries to avoid the fluctuating exchange rates. Currently the US dollar is used as the reserve currency for governments worldwide. An I.M.F. currency would lessen the dependency of USA as a provider of currency and it would shield other countries in case of any crisis or economic problems in USA.
It is noteworthy that the major promoters of the global currency idea were China and Russia (two countries that aren’t keen of depending on USA), while the idea of an I.M.F. currency was completely rejected by USA in front of a stable and strong US dollar.
The movie talks about a single day-to-day global currency only in the realm of “what ifs”, as it would be extremely challenging to impose one, not to mention practical and ideological problems this would bring.
For example, to adopt a single currency the other countries would basically have to adopt the debts of every other country using the same currency, regulate how it is being spent and distributed in a world wide scale and face the resistance of people who are against it in said countries.
And there is no global digital currency being implemented nor has any country or major group pressured for its creation (unless you count PayPal as one).
Of course I assume Gamble was referring the latest G8 and G20 Summit in 2009.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6YzcXlgBTn1fLXu1iFIFS3vIkNQ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7961106.stm
http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/text/docs/2009/03/213995.shtml
Global tax on carbon emissions
Gamble cites the possibility of a global tax on carbon emissions as one step towards a single global government and tyranny. (For Gamble any kind of tax is bad, mmm’kay? He hates any tax, anywhere, by anyone, any time, for any reason).
The chances are, if you’re living in the European Union or in California, you’re already paying the tax.
Gamble obviously has a few misconceptions about it. First it wasn’t imposed on any country, it was a suggested implementation for countries and state/provinces to adopt.
For example, a few states in US adopted the tax (like California), while several other countries decided to implement it. In most cases this implementation was voted in by the country’s population representatives in their respective legislatures.
Second, the money doesn’t go to a global central bank such as the I.M.F. It goes to the country’s own reserves. In other words the money collected with this tax stays in the country.
Third, there is no global police enforcing its implementation nor has the G8/G20 or U.N. ever proposed one to enforce this policy. Neither U.N., NATO nor any other entity k has either the legal power to impose the policy and the support to do so.
So what is this “carbon tax” you hear Gamble complaining about?
The carbon tax is a value imposed on a fixed quantity of emitted carbon dioxide resulted from industrial activity/power generation. The same way you pay for the litter/gallon of water or the KW/h of power your house uses, industries would pay for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during their activity. For example 12.50 U$D per ton of CO2.
The main idea behind the carbon tax is to hit industries on where they feel the most, their pockets. By making inefficient and dirty energy generation methods more expensive, it gives more motivations for said companies to either adopt more efficient and clean methods or to invest more in clean energy (like free energy? har har). Of course the initial price will be reflected upon the customers, but this would also pressure the same companies as they would risk losing customers to companies that did make the investments and provide cheaper and cleaner energy. This also makes alternative energies like wind, solar and nuclear more attractive, by lessening the cost gap between those and fossil fuels.
There is also the idea of a cap and trade system, where governments set a limit of how much industries can pollute. Those who keep their emissions under said limit can sell their difference to industries who can’t.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-trading.htm
http://environment.about.com/od/carbontaxfaq/f/what-is-a-carbon-tax.htm
http://environment.about.com/od/capandtradefaq/f/capandtrade.htm
False Flags, Lasers from the outer space and FEMA death camps.
Following this, Gamble and David Icke talk about crisis or disasters that would be created or used to implement measures that follow the GDA by manipulating the media and the facts to suit their needs. In other words, a larger scale “false flag” operation, which my colleague Muertos has already debunked.
Its also worth mentioning that there are several cases where the media goes exactly against the government’s interest, for example while Fox News was in support of the Iraq War, CNN wasn’t.
Once again Thrive is quote mining and using selective editing to get its point across.
Gamble later claims the US government has the legal power to arrest and assassinate US citizens at will, but without providing any examples or occurrences of this happening.
Then Gamble mentions Radio Frequency Identification chips (RFID) as a tool to keep constant check on every citizen.
For some reason he implies those can be used to track anyone anywhere on the globe with pinpoint accuracy. Well, this is not the case. RFID chips aren’t GPS (Global Positioning System) transponders. There’s a difference. Even the relatively large active RFID tags (which carry their own power source) have a limited range which can go up to a little more than a 100 feet (approximately 33 meters) with the smaller, passive RFIDs having their range limited at a few feet. They are also useless if there isn’t any active scanner looking for them, are they are prone to suffer interference from other chips and can be easily tampered with.
The only things RFID chips are useful for is to make it (arguably) harder to falsify and easier to verify documents (this is a really good thing), keep stock control in warehouses and to keep important information at hand for security concerns. While animal chipping is common to keep track of pets, human chipping isn’t. There isn’t any government or companies forcing its citizens/customers/employees to use sub-dermal RFID. It is offered as an option by some companies and yet there aren’t many people actually using it.
Not to mention those chips can be relatively easily destroyed, have their information altered or decrypted (thanks to the low processing power and limited information storage).
Gamble states that these chips would be used to track citizens and use orbital lasers to assassinate dissenters from orbit. This is so ridiculous as to be almost funny.
He claims the name of the project is “Full Spectrum Dominance.” While there is a program called Full Spectrum Dominance, it is a military doctrine which calls for winning battles by using land, air, sea, space and cyberspace to control all elements of the battle. It has nothing to do with RFID chips or controlling dissenters against the government. Absolutely nothing.
This is by far one of the most unfounded and absurd statements Gamble has made in Thrive. What makes it even more absurd is how Gamble seems to be the only one to know about this, since a project of this size would fall on the radars of many other countries opposing the US and be certainly leaked at one point or another by people inside. If this plan exists, why hasn’t Iran said anything about it?
And even how Gamble claims it will be used is absurd. A laser satellite is even less subtle than a predator drone flying above its target or a sniper waiting to take his shot, not to mention extremely expensive, prone to error and easier to fool.
Besides, if the US had this kind of technology it would certainly be put to better uses such as a defensive ballistic missile shield or a tactical and strategic weapon to be used on enemy assets, not on angry YouTube commenters or armchair tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.
Besides, any amateur astronomer would be able to verify the presence of these satellites with a powerful scope and a computer.
If there is an award for the single stupidest claim in Thrive, this should win it.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/technology-article.asp
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/high-tech-gadgets/rfid.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification
The FEMA camps
I’d give a good chunk of time to debunk the F.E.M.A. camps if that hasn’t already been done to death everywhere else. But this falls under the same problems of most conspiracy theories: there is hardly any evidence supporting its existence, most of the “evidence” is either edited to look like it’s suspicious and strange when in fact it isn’t.
The F.E.M.A. camps started to become popular again thanks to ultra right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. It’s also very popular with far right groups who hate the government.
Here are some links debunking the conspiracy theory of F.E.M.A. camps.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/fema/camps/
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fema-concentration-camps-militia-goo
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/36526/fema-camps-jesse-venturas-conspiracy-theory-debunked/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513024,00.html (Even Fox News doesn’t believe it!)
Rockefeller quote
“The social experiment in China under the chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history” – David Rockefeller
Unlike some other quotes in Thrive which are just made up, this gem was actually said by David Rockefeller in an article in the New York Times.
But after reading the article I drew the conclusion that Rockefeller was talking about the differences of philosophy between the West and China about the reforms China undertook during the 50’s through early 70’s and how it would fare against the Western economy after opening up its borders to foreign products and investments. It has nothing to do with conspiracies.
Here is the link with the article, in case you want to draw your own conclusions.
As usual, Thrive is wrong. What else is new?
“Follow the Money”–Debunked!
By SlayerX3
One of the central passages of Thrive is a section often referred to as “Follow the Money,” which Thrive fans treat as some sort of slogan. This section contains Foster Gamble and others’ views on fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve, the economic crisis, and conspiracy theories related to these. This article debunks those ideas.
Fraction Reserve Banking
Disclaimer:
Before the Wikipedia bashing begins, I’m using Wikipedia for two reasons: (1) Simplicity, and (2) it works well for summaries of information, even though I will provide further sources and more detailed information links than Wikipedia can provide.
PS: This part of the movie is incredibly complicated for anyone involved here to deal with, as given that most people don’t understand how economy and politics work by themselves, much less together, unless you’re well-versed in mathematics, economics or political science. Comments that simply complain about how wrong or rigged the actual political and economic systems are will be seen basically as an opinion and not fact.
It also doesn’t help that for the makers of Thrive the current economic system is a scam/conspiracy created by a powerful Financial Elite to perpetuate their own power. Arguing the existence of this conspiracy (Thrive mostly uses misinterpretations and opinions that they exist instead of verifiable facts) feels like beating a dead horse, thanks to our good old friend Confirmation Bias.
When they begin talking about Fractional Reserve Banking, Foster Gamble and and David Icke get a few things right at the beginning. They are right about how saving deposits are used by banks for loans and financing, but the film cuts short the explanation of why this happens and the economic reasons to use fractional reserve banking. Instead of explaining the real reasons behind this, the movie simply dismisses it by saying “it creates money out of nowhere.”
What is Fractional Reserve Banking?
Fractional Reserve Banking (FRB) is a form of banking where the deposits made on the bank are separated in two parts. The first is the amount the bank is allowed to loan and the second is the part the banks is obligated to keep as a reserve. This amount is dictated by the central bank of the country where the bank is operating.
Does it really “create money out of nowhere?”
The answer will depend of which kind of money you’re talking about. If you’re referring to printed money, it can’t “create money out of nowhere,” as the values being loaned and being circulated haven’t been made or printed yet.
If you’re talking about value: yes it can create more value since there is more money circulating than there is physical printed money.
This is much better explained by the links I’ll provide.
Why do banks work with FRB and how come they don’t “run out of money”?
Because it is fluid, FRB allows banks to generate profit and still provide access to people or business to acquire money for whatever reasons they need it–for example, to buy a house or start a business. FRB guarantees there will be money circulating for investments, consumer goods and to accommodate a growing and active economy.
[Muertos comment: this is not a new invention. If we did not have FRB in some form, our economy would be stuck in the early 19th century. The whole concept of modern banking, historically, developed as a means to permit sufficient capital to be accumulated to fund large-scale projects, both public and private. Without something like FRB, we would not have public works projects like dams, sewer systems or transportation, and we would not have privately-funded industries such as computers and information technology, because it simply wouldn’t be possible to get enough capital together to even begin to pay for these things. This is the historical reality that critics of FRB refuse to understand.]
The influx of savings deposits and payments on loans that they make usually are enough for most banks to be secure they will have the money needed to honor the withdrawals, as there are more people making payments and saving deposits than there are people making withdrawals of their own savings and assets.
What if there are more people making more withdrawals than the bank has money on reserve?
Remember the credit crisis that started in 2008 and is still kicking? One of the reasons why it went from bad to worse and from worse to a total disaster was because of this–people making more withdrawals than banks had in reserve. In times of economic crisis, if there is a doubt that the banks will be able to honor the deposits made on them, this leads to people and investors to withdraw all their assets within the bank in a really short amount of time, before other depositors can withdraw their share. This creates a cascade effect that can possibly (almost certainly) cause a bank run. This forces the bank to call in its short term loans, draw upon credit lines with other banks or ask for last resort rescue loans from the central bank.
Okay, but how this is bad for people?
In time of a stable economy this not bad for financially responsible people, those who take out loans that are smaller than their average yearly income and can make sure that the accumulated interest won’t surpass all their earnings during the intended financing period. Take for example financing the purchase of a house with a 10 year mortgage plan. It is, however, extremely dangerous for people who to borrow who are in unstable financial situations (like no job security, health problems, addictions) or do not measure how much interest they’re incurring compared to how much they earn, or people who simply don’t care about the long term consequences of their lack of foresight (I can’t miss the chance to throw this jab at the American reader).
In times of instability, however, irresponsible borrowing (and lending) can hit hard even the responsible people hard. This is what happened in 2008.
Gamble continues with a story telling how the fractional reserve banking system was born.
Setting aside Mr. Gamble’s implications of how it is used to create money on the backs of people (which is an arguable question), if you want to know how central banks and fractional reserve banking came to be, look for the history of the Bank of Amsterdam.
Here are some links that further explain what FRB is and how it came about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
http://www.canadabanks.net/default.aspx?article=Fractional-Reserve+Banking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH2-37rTA8U (Khan Academy on FRB, quite educational I must add, as long as you avoid the comments section).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpma/0203005.htm (look for the download link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_fractional_reserve_banking
Later Gamble states how FRB is used to create a population that is tied to their debts to the bank.
Then Thrive provides us with this quote: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning” – Henry Ford, 1922
The quote appears to be completely fake. Although it is commonly cited on conspiracy theorist, 9/11 Truth and “End the Fed” websites, there is no source and no context linking it to Henry Ford. Not even the dates that Ford supposedly said it are consistent.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Ford
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy#Attributed
[Muertos comment: conspiracy theorists love to use fake quotes, and this is not the only fake quote in Thrive–there’s a quote by Henry Kissinger that is equally false. The problem with these quotes is that, once it gets out there and conspiracy theorists decide they like it, a quote gets repeated all over the place on all sorts of conspiracy theorist websites–thus creating the erroneous impression that, because the quote appears so often, it must be true and accurate. If you don’t believe that this happens all the time, just think back on all the things comedian George Carlin is supposed to have said–only a small fraction of them are actually real Carlin quotes, and as he is dead, he can’t dispute that he didn’t say them.
When conspiracy theorists are challenged on fake quotes, many of them will say something like, “Well, you can’t prove that he didn’t say it!” That, of course, is asinine. You can’t just make up any crap you like, put it in someone’s mouth and then challenge people to prove they didn’t say it. But, sadly, this is how conspiracy theorists think. Quotes about banking are particularly attractive to conspiracy theorists because they love the idea of respected figures from history having supposedly “warned” us about the dangers that they (conspiracy theorists) insist are right around the corner.]
After the fake Henry Ford quote, Gamble resumes his rant on how we have become debt slaves of a financial elite who has rigged the system to their benefit.
Take this as you will, but you’ll become a debt slave if you decide to acquire (too much) debt in the first place. For many this seems unavoidable.
[Muertos comment: the term “debt slave” bothers me because it’s misleading. Suppose you have a good job and a family. You take out a 30-year mortgage at a reasonable interest rate in order to buy a bigger house to raise your kids in. You can easily make the payments and your house increases in equity in the meantime. Are you still a “debt slave” for the next 30 years? If you decide to sell the house you pay off the mortgage, and can take the equity and invest in a bigger house elsewhere. How is this “slavery”? And what’s the alternative–live in a smaller, crappier place and try to raise your kids there, where you don’t have room for them? Why is taking advantage of the opportunities that debt creates necessarily a bad thing? Thrive doesn’t see distinctions along these lines. In its ideology, all debt is bad.]
Catherine Austin Fitts
From Muertos’s article debunking the trailer:
“Catherine Austin Fitts was Assistant Secretary for Housing in 1989-90 under the first George Bush. She is also a Wall Street banker. She currently works for an investment advisory firm called Solari, Inc.”
Ms. Fitts, along with Mr. Gamble, keeps reaffirming how FRB is used to print more money and enslave more people through debt. Later she makes a comparison with ordinary people counterfeiting money being a crime, while the [central] banks printing money being called “increasing the money supply” as if there’s no distinction here. There is a distinction. I don’t know, maybe it’s related to the fact that central banks are trusted institutions, and they are an effective way to control interest rates and the amount of money being circulated so as to make sure hyperinflation or hyper-deflation do not take place. Yes, said measures can fail, but it’s certainly not the same as “printing money” just for the hell of it.
Gamble then cites the gathering of the “secret” Morgans and Rockefellers on Jekyll Island, where (he says) the draft of the Federal Reserve was created.
First he fails to mention that a central banking system was already in place in Europe–especially in Germany–long before the bankers and politicians in US were considering using a central banking system. Second, politicians in US were already studying alternatives to the US Treasury bonds and lack of liquidity and access to credit, mostly in response to the Panic of 1907.
After this Gamble beings talking about the creation of the Fed and the Internal Revenue Service in the same year, “forcing us to pay for the politicians’ debt”, and introduces the viewer to G. Edward Griffin and his book.
G. Edward Griffin
Writer of “The Creature from Jekyll Island” which is about the creation the Fed, Griffin is a critic of the current banking system and advocates private currency as being “real money.” Needless to say, his ideas are quite popular amongst libertarian circles.
(If you want to know how bad this idea of “real money” is, just imagine going to the state next to yours just to find out that the private currency of your local bank, backed by a commodity like silver or gold, is worthless because the other state operates at different standards or doesn’t accept your currency. Or, worse yet, imagine if the bank goes bankrupt, all your assets in said bank are gone, and there is no central bank or institution to guarantee the bank will have the resources to honor its deposits).
[Muertos comment: we had precisely this problem in the Great Depression, which resulted in an entity called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation–an agency that makes sure that you, as a bank depositor, will be able to retrieve your money from that bank (up to $250,000, I think) even if the bank fails. Where would the money come from if the FDIC had to make you whole after your bank fails? It would come from a fund administered by the federal government. Doesn’t sound so bad when you think about it like that, does it?]
Griffin goes on about how the central banks are cartels that work with governments and have the legal power to create money out of nothing when the government needs it.
I think the “out of nothing” part of the money is not entirely nothing. There seems to be a massive misconception that when a central bank prints more currency, it’s simply creating more money out of nothing. First, it doesn’t happen this way. Even though the money is not backed by a scarce commodity (like gold), the value attributed to it is related to how trusted and reliable the country’s central bank is. Printing more money without the generation of wealth decreases the value of the money. This is why you can trade one US Dollar for 10,000 Zimbabwe Dollars, and the same reason why the Zimbabwe 1000 Dollar bill is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. Printing more money without generation of wealth will lead to inflation and the loss of value for the currency.
[Muertos comment: this has been proven time and time again historically, such as in the U.S. when “greenbacks” were printed to help finance the Civil War. It didn’t work then either.]
The central banks are not only able to create more money. They are also capable of removing money from circulation when needed. For example, during Christmas the US Federal Reserve prints more money to assure all the withdraws will be possible, and then they remove the extra bills from circulation afterwards.
When this happens, the fiat currency doesn’t lose its value because it is just a representation of the wealth that already does exist, even though most of this wealth is in form of data like the amount you have in your bank or how much all your declared belongs are worth. It doesn’t mean it’s worthless. It’s a representation. It’s not wealth itself.
Let’s put this way. The amount of wealth in dollars is X and the amount of printed paper money is Y. Because most of the wealth being traded, stored or transferred is in the form of savings, credits, stocks, checks and representations other than printed fiat currency, X will be always higher than Y, but when people are making withdrawals, collecting their payments or selling things, more money will begin to circulate from hand to hand. Since there is more money in data form than there is in the form of printed money, the Central Banks print the money and send bills to the local banks to make sure they are capable of handling all the money being moved and spent. This will make Y approach the amount of X, but if the amount of Y being printed and in circulation is getting closer to the amount of X, there is a chance that Y will surpass X. This will lead to the devaluation of the currency on which X and Y operate, leading to inflation.
To put it in even more simple terms: when you print currency to represent wealth, you’re not creating money out of nowhere. When you print more currency than you have wealth, you’re lowering the value of the money. The amount of wealth is still the same but the value of the currency changes.
Bill Still on the Federal Reserve
Bill Still is another Libertarian film producer, highly critical of the monetary system in US. He is also seeking the nomination from the Libertarian Party for the 2012 elections.
During his short appearance in Thrive, Mr. Still claims that the Fed is a privately-owned bank made to look like a government bank. To get his point across he says the Federal Reserve, instead of being on the blue government pages in the Washington DC area phone books, is on the white pages. He thinks this is evidence!
Since I don’t live in the US and I didn’t look at a phone book from the DC area during my short but pleasant stay in US, I have to say that was a really bad choice for evidence.
[Muertos comment: there are a lot of stupid assertions in Thrive, but this one has got to be in the top five most ridiculous things in the entire movie. I can’t believe Mr. Gamble let this one through–it’s simply insulting to the intelligence.]
Alan Greenspan on the government’s relations with the Federal Reserve
At 1:00:02 of the movie there is a short video clip in which Alan Greenspan claims that the Federal Reserve doesn’t take direct orders from the president or the Congress. This is used to show the Fed as a rogue agency that answers to no one.
This is totally wrong. Mr. Greenspan’s quote is taken out of context.
For starters, all members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, are handpicked by the president and approved by Senate vote. They are required by law to have a “fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests and geographical divisions of the country.” This means they have to be scholars in economics, politics and above all they must represent the economic interests of the nation, not the interests of the Congress and not of the president. They are accountable for their actions which can lead to members of the board not being nominated again as well the formal and informal relationships of the board members with the president and the Congress.
There is a really good reason why the central banks usually don’t answer directly the executive chief in office and the Congress: if they did, politicians could use these banks for political gain and directly affect the economy. We need an independent Federal Reserve.
A brief study of history, especially looking at some South American countries and African countries, will show that when the politicians can control the decisions of the central banks and therefore dictate the course of the economy, the results are not pretty. More often than not this is completely disastrous for the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU
Even though the title of the linked video and the comment section of the youtube page follow the same line of thought of the people featured in Thrive, I’d like the viewer to see the part beginning at 8:00 where Greenspan remembers that the actions taken by the Fed would hurt G.H.W. Bush’s reelection. Just think about that for a few minutes. What if Bush was able to change the decisions of the Fed for his own political gain? What would that do to the economy of the United States? This could potentially harm the economy more than it was already harmed in 1992 (which at that time was in a deep recession). This is why the Congress and the president don’t have much say in the decisions of the Fed, but the Fed is still accountable for its decisions. The people on the Federal Reserve Board were chosen by the president and approved by the Senate in the first place, making them accountable for their actions inside the Federal Reserve.
Here are some documents containing detailed explanations of the relations of the Federal Reserve with other branches of the US Government. As you will see, it’s far from an unaccountable rogue entity.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-federal-reserve.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/od/governmentagencies/p/fed.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2000/20001024.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty3.html
“Economic parasite”
After this, Mr. Gamble and Ms. Fitts give us analogies on how the bankers use their data on the economy to benefit themselves at expense of others. I won’t argue much with that because it is happening, but not for the reasons Gamble & friends would you like to believe.
FBI Raid
Since it is Mr. Gamble talking about the FBI raiding her (Ms. Fitts’s) company not her saying it, and nowhere in her company’s website or her bio mentions the said raid, I’m skeptical that it even happened. I also tried to look for news articles mentioning this raid hoping to see something like the paper shot Gamble gave us on the screen, but the only places I saw any mention of it were 9/11 Truth websites and a few truthers’ blogs without any external links or sources to this event beyond what their word for it.
[Muertos comment: always be skeptical of anything that appears on 9/11 Truth websites and nowhere else. 9/11 Truthers are notoriously incapable of getting almost anything right.]
Unless Ms. Fitts herself can come forward and explain in her own words what happened, or if someone can provide me a reliable link or newsfeed with info validating Mr. Gamble’s characterization of what happened, I’ll keep my sense of disbelief about the big government suppressing her findings, specially someone with credentials and political reach like her. (Blogs or forums do not count as reliable source; I’m talking about newspaper articles or public data).
[Muertos comment: given the fact that ten people who appear in Thrive have signed a letter repudiating the film and saying the movie was misrepresented to them, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if what Ms. Fitts would say about what happened would differ significantly from the way Mr. Gamble puts it in the film.]
The Dollar and the Sub-prime crisis:
Gamble begins this part with a moot point about the devaluation of the dollar, showing it from 1913 to 2010.
Remember when I discussed the matter of currency in circulation vs. the real value of wealth? Well, this is what happened: when the Federal Reserve came into being, having a regular universally recognized currency made trade easier both on the internal market as well the international market. It made the US economy more open to these markets, generating more trade, and as result more currency started to circulate. To compensate for the new amount of money circulating and more people earning more money, prices rose, because people where consuming more. This effect is called “demand-pull inflation.” This is regarded as the good kind of inflation because it shows that the country is THRIVING.
This doesn’t make people poor. If the prices are rising, so are peoples’ wages. Even if products have higher prices they still hold the same value. (The kind of inflation that rises both price and value is called “cost-push inflation,” and this happens due to the increase of production cost or scarcity. This is the bad kind of inflation).
But why doesn’t the currency return to its original value after a while? This happens because of an economic effect called “built-in inflation,” where past experiences dictate how the wages and prices will rise. Workers expect inflation to pinch in the future, so they start asking for higher wages to compensate. As a result, companies start raising the price of their products so they don’t lose their profit margins. Because this builds over time it becomes something like a change of currency or a hard economic crisis, where money is being hoarded and trading comes to a halt.
Even if you look to Mr. Gamble’s graph you’ll notice the periods when the dollar’s value rose were in the interwar period and during WWII, when US was still suffering from the 1929 stock crash that brought the US economy to its knees, and during WWII where all the US economy was focused on the war effort instead of producing consumer goods and trading. After those periods were over, trading resumed and, as expected, the value of the dollar declined as more currency began circulating again.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-inflation.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built-in_inflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-push_inflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation
Wealth Gap
Same case as the “economic parasite” claim: the gap in wealth is a big problem, but Thrive has the wrong take on what is the cause.
No, I don’t have a magic bullet solution for wealth disparity. No one does. I do, however, support several policies involving fiscal responsibility, fair taxation, better public health and education plans, transparency from both government and corporate business and not reelecting the same politicians with histories of corruption and incompetence.
Bankers and crisis
Gamble tries to correlate the stock crash of 1929 and the Great Depression to the creation of the Fed. Logically correlation does not equal causation. If you take a look at what happened, the stock crash of 1929 was caused by reckless investments on high risk and speculative shares. With the investments boom more people where buying shares and raising market prices. This would only become viable if the stock market kept rising at a quick rate. If the rise wasn’t fast enough, halted or went into a downturn, those shares would lose their value. This was combined with the massive loans stock brokers were making to investors (called “margin”). The investor only had to pay 50% of the share value and the broker would complete the rest with his own money. Thousands of people taking loans to purchase more shares didn’t help as it was creating a massive economic bubble. As expected, once the stock market faced a downturn, mass panic selling followed, forcing the share’s values down creating a cycle where investors had to sell their shares to pay their brokers and avoid losing too much money with shares that by this time had lost all their value.
[Muertos comment: the causes of the Great Depression are still highly controversial today. There is no one clear answer, but what you’ve identified is clearly part of the problem–any basic book on the crash will make this case. It’s also not limited to 1929. I was working in the financial sector during the “dot com bust” of 2000-2001, and much the same thing happened–shares were grossly overvalued, and there was too much credit attached to financial speculation. When dot coms started to post less than impressive profit numbers, the whole thing collapsed. Something similar happened in 2008, except instead of stocks it was financial products tied to real estate.]
It is also worth remembering that the both people buying and selling the shares are normal people, prone to make mistakes, get nervous or act on impulse. This means one bad rumor in a highly volatile place such as the stock market can cause many stocks’ value to plummet. Do this on a large scale and you can get yourself a nice big crisis on your hands.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Bierman.Crash
http://stocks.fundamentalfinance.com/stock-market-crash-of-1929.php (this is a TL;DR version of the previous link)
I also would like to have access to this “research” Mr. Gamble claims did on the “major banks” moving their money away from the stock market before the crash, because I’m not able to find any reliable link or article showing that this in fact happened.
The 2008’s credit bubble crisis
This is the only thing preventing me to copy paste the debunking of Zeitgeist here and calling it a day.
But where do I start? First Foster Gamble and David Icke and their “research” (really, I’d like to see the data Gamble uses to make his statements) want to lead the viewer to believe the 2008 economic crash was a ploy engineered by the major banks to consolidate their power by breaking smaller business and seizing their assets.
But there are a few problems with this. For one those assets (mostly houses) have become worthless, and the bail outs are not even close to the amount lost by the banks during the crisis. Plus, why create an economic crisis in the first place? The last thing you want, if you’re a banker or an industrialist, is an economic crisis where people stop spending and the economy stagnates.
So what happened in the 2008’s subprime crisis?
It was caused by a combination of lack of foresight, greed, high interest rates, high risk investments and a complete lack of regulations for the financial sector (I can hear from here all the libertarians shrieking in horror after reading this).
Putting it in layman’s terms, before the 2008 crisis the housing sector in United States was one of the most attractive investments for a few reasons. First, the continuous rise of housing prices and the demand for new houses, and second the too low interest rates from the Federal Reserve that were not attractive to the investors anymore (they were around 1% during 2008).
Okay, what was the banks’ deal then?
They were buying the mortgages from lenders and then reselling them to investors looking for investments with better rates. The banks would proceed to lend more money, mostly from other major banks and from central banks, to acquire more mortgages. Then the banks would generate massive profits from all the homeowners paying their mortgages.
So far so good. But for them there was a problem: since this was one relatively safe and high profit deal, the banks wanted more people paying more mortgages on the rising housing prices.
When a financing company sold the mortgages for the banks, if the homeowner went into default the bank would get the house. This was attractive for the bank because the housing prices were rising at the time. This meant that when the mortgage broker sells the house at a new higher price, the lenders and the banks would make a better profit with the new mortgage payers.
Okay, but where do the problems begin?
The number of AAA home buyers (meaning, reliable and financially responsible people) buying houses was too low to sustain the kind of profits they wanted to make selling and flipping mortgages. So, not wanting to miss the opportunity of selling the houses at higher prices and collecting the higher mortgages, the banks and lenders started selling the houses to subprime families (non reliable people) that they knew would go into default in a matter of time so they could resell the house again and again. Major profits were made this way. The lender would sell the mortgage for the banks and then the bank would sell it to an investor willing to take the risk.
With this happening soon the number of houses going into default was increasing. The number of houses being placed on the market for sale was also rising, but the number of people looking for a house was not. Actually most of the people who could afford a house already had one and with the subprime families simply not paying, this was starting to drive the housing prices down. To make things worse, the people who could afford their high mortgages simply started abandoning their houses because now they were worth a fraction of what they used to be worth, and yet their mortgage was the same.
This left the banks with a lot of houses, but with no one paying for them. The banks borrowed massive amounts of money to buy those mortgages, and the lenders had a lot of houses with people who were going into default, and the investors had a lot of high risk deals that have become worthless. The investors were not able to sell the risk to anyone because by this time everyone noticed that things were not going as planned and stopped buying or selling, essentially freezing the banking and the financing market, bankrupting the banks, the investors and the lenders.
And the banks owned a lot of money they couldn’t pay back, usually to other large banks either in US or Europe, thus dragging those banks down into the crisis with them.
This is the simple explanation, but there are other factors that contributed to the crisis. For example, easy credit (it stimulated not only banks to borrow huge sums of money but also common folk), predatory lending (lending deals so long and prone to change that people were deceived into deals that aren’t what they are advertised) and underwriting (banks with mortgages that didn’t meet proper standards and selling them to other banks and investors) and deregulation of the banking industry (this made easier for banks and financing companies to pull their stunts without the government being able to interfere).
This showed that the banking system had serious problems both ethically and financially, but the reality is much less Machiavellian (and boring) than Gamble would you like to believe.
Back to the movie. We have Mr. Gamble explaining the crisis using a fish hook analogy to show how the financial elites consolidate their power. I’d bother to explain who this logic is wrong if I didn’t do it already above.
Again the banks won’t make major profit from a lot of houses with devaluated prices and with their credibility shot.
Gentlemen! Behold the links!
http://crisisofcredit.com/ (a friendly video explanation about how the crisis came to be)
http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk/blog/debt/credit-crunch-explained/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/f/What-Is-the-Global-Financial-Crisis-of-2008.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/od/themarkets/f/hedge_funds.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/09/23/why-the-bailout-is-necessary.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/emergency-lending-financial-crisis-20111206.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/21/imf-huge-global-bank-losses
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/global/22fund.html?_r=1
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/banking/a/aa062405.htm
“Give me control over a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”–Baron Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I can’t find this quote in any history source or website. The only result that purported to show where it came from besides attributing it to Amschel Rothschild is from The Creature of Jekyll Island.
And it featured in America: Freedom to Fascism.
Too bad Mayer Amschel Rothschild died in 1812, virtually a hundred years before the quote started making its first appearances during the early 20th century.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/mayer_amschel_rothschild_quote_8bed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism#Quotation_of_Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild
[Google Books link discussing the quote]
Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
There isn’t much to talk about the BIS and the IMF. The BIS acts like a hub for central banks to organize themselves, regularize the sector and push for transparency on the business. The IMF is a bank responsible for money lending programs enjoyed by its contributors. It is infamous for cases of sheer incompetence due to lack of touch with the reality of the countries they were lending money to or how the assistance programs are perceived by the local population. Depending on who you ask or which country you’re talking about, the IMF can be either seen as a major tool for the development of a country or just a means for the developed and industrialized nations to explore the undeveloped ones.
Like the Federal Reserve and other “major banks,” Gamble also claims they are controlled by the financial elite.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bis.asp#axzz1sXrQrlhd
https://www.imf.org/external/index.htm
Conclusion
As with much else in Thrive, the “Follow the Money” section is long on rhetoric and short on identifiable facts. There are oversimplifications, important concepts left out, quotes whose truth can’t be identified, and a lot of distortions. This section isn’t done very much better than any other section in Thrive.
As difficult as this subject is, hopefully this analysis gives you something to work with as you evaluate the claims made by the movie.
Throwing Thrive Under the Bus: Progressives Interviewed in the Film Distance Themselves From Its “Dangerously Misguided” Ideas. (UPDATED!)
This blog, originally published April 12, 2012, was updated April 13, 2012. Scroll to the end for the update.
It seems that the honeymoon the public has had with Thrive as a result of the film’s release free on the web has already come to a crashing halt. Yesterday, nine of the people interviewed in Thrive—John Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Paul Hawken, Elisabet Sahtouris, Duane Elgin, Vandana Shiva, Edgar Mitchell, Amy Goodman and John Perkins—issued a public statement denouncing the film and stressing their profound disagreement with it. They also claim that Foster Gamble and the makers of the film misrepresented it when securing their participation. This is potentially an extremely serious development for Foster Gamble and Clear Compass Media, whose film is already under heavy attack from anti-conspiracy skeptics, progressive political thinkers, and environmentalists.
Who Said What?
An article in the Santa Cruz News (online) by reporter Eric Johnson quotes portions of the statement as well as remarks by John Robbins. Mr. Robbins is an environmentalist, an advocate for sustainability and a health/fitness author best known for his book Diet for a New America, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. He lives in the Santa Cruz, California area and knows Thrive makers Foster and Kimberly Gamble personally. According to the article, Mr. Robbins was invited to an advance screening of Thrive at Mr. Gamble’s house. Here’s how he describes what he saw there:
“Robbins, who makes a brief appearance in the film, says he was “overwhelmed” by what he saw.
“There were parts I liked, but there were other parts that I just detested,” he recalls. “I didn’t want to be rude—we were there with our families—so I just didn’t say anything.”
According to the Santa Cruz Weekly News article, Mr. Robbins told the reporter that Foster Gamble didn’t tell them about the real contents of the film beforehand. They didn’t know what was in it until it came out publicly. Additionally, Paul Hawken and Elizabeth Sahtouris told the news outlet that Mr. Gamble had actively misrepresented the film.
Just this evening, John Robbins posted a comment on my blog which included the full text of the statement signed by himself and the six other interviewees who have denounced Thrive. Here is the text of the statement as it was presented to me:
“We are a group of people who were interviewed for and appear in the movie Thrive, and who hereby publicly disassociate ourselves from the film.
Thrive is a very different film from what we were led to expect when we agreed to be interviewed. We are dismayed that we were not given a chance to know its content until the time of its public release. We are equally dismayed that our participation is being used to give credibility to ideas and agendas that we see as dangerously misguided.
We stand by what each of us said when we were interviewed. But we have grave disagreements with some of the film’s content and feel the need to make this public statement to avoid the appearance that our presence in the film constitutes any kind of endorsement.
Signatories (in alphabetical order)
Deepak Chopra
Duane Elgin
Amy Goodman
Paul Hawken
Edgar Mitchell
John Perkins
John Robbins
Elisabet Sahtouris
Vandana Shiva”
I am not surprised by this move. Since at least December I’ve been hearing rumors that numerous interviewees in Thrive were upset at how the movie came out and appalled that their words and images appear in it. This clearly indicated that there were problems with how the makers of the film presented the project when they went to secure these commentators’ interviews. However, at the time I had no hard knowledge that these rumors were true, so I didn’t feel comfortable publicizing them. I expected that eventually one or more of the interviewees would go public. Now they have.
Why now? It’s clearly because of the recent free release of the film, which seems to have boosted its popularity. The Santa Cruz Weekly article states that the nine who disavowed the movie had hoped Thrive would simply go away. It didn’t, and has become “something of a Web cult phenomenon.” Because of the popularity of the movie, they decided to go public at this time.
Why Am I Not Surprised?
There is a clear division among the people interviewed in Thrive. Some of them are people who have severe problems commanding credibility in the mainstream—David Icke, Adam Trombly and Nassim Haramein all fall into that category. However, there are also others interviewed in the film who do not appear to be conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists or otherwise makers of wild and unproven claims. That doesn’t mean I agree with them on everything they have to say; however, I suspected from the very get-go that these people weren’t being told the full story of what Thrive was about before they agreed to appear in the film.
I will direct the readers to a passage in my very first article about Thrive, which was a debunking of the trailer, even before I’d seen the full film. Here’s what I had to say about Elisabet Sahtouris, Paul Hawken, and Amy Goodman:
“Dr. Sahtouris is the first person in this movie [at the time I meant the trailer] who actually has a real, verifiable Ph.D…. She lectures on evolution of humanity and how to create a better future. Given that she, like Catherine Fitts, sounds completely sane, I suspect that her inclusion in this movie is somewhat unwitting. Another clue that tells me this is that she appears to believe in global warming. While global warming isn’t mentioned in the Thrive trailer, I would lay odds that most of Thrive’s target audience believes that global warming is a hoax. Most conspiracy theorists do. I do not think Dr. Sahtouris is a conspiracy theorist….
Paul Hawken is a California businessman and environmentalist. He advocates for socially and environmentally responsible business practices (and I certainly agree with that). He hosted a 17-part series on PBS about running socially responsible businesses. Again, another sane person who makes me wonder if he was told he was going to be in the same movie as David Icke and Adam Trombly…
Democracy Now! is a radio program on the Pacifica radio network, dedicated to progressive causes. I’ve never listened to the show, but browsing their material there seems to be a lot of stuff I agree with. Amy Goodman was arrested along with two other reporters at the 2008 Republican National Convention despite having committed no crime. The charges were eventually dropped.
As with several other respectable names here (Fitts, Hawken, Sahtouris, williams) I wonder what she is doing in a conspiracy theory movie.”
In fact, it is noteworthy that Mr. Robbins is most upset about the very same aspect of Thrive that most upsets me—its inclusion of David Icke. According to the Santa Cruz article, he was especially concerned with the inclusion in the film of Mr. Icke as well as G. Edward Griffin, both of whom are detailed on the Thrive website. The Santa Cruz Weekly article reports that Griffin is associated with the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society. As for David Icke, whose claim to fame is obviously (as I pointed out in my own piece on him) the conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by a race of shape-shifting reptilian aliens from the constellation Draco, the Weekly article raises exactly the same concerns about the anti-Semitic aspects of Mr. Icke’s theories as I’ve noted on this blog.
Furthermore, Mr. Robbins told the Santa Cruz Weekly that Foster Gamble has taken a lot of inspiration from the work of Eustace Mullins. Mullins is, in Mr. Robbins’s words, “the most anti-Semitic public figure in U.S. history.” The article mentions that Eustace Mullins is the author of a book called Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation. The mere title of that book should tell you what it’s about–and in this case the cover of the book is quite a good advertisement for what you’ll find inside. In that book Mullins rails against “Jewish international bankers” and alleges a plot by them for world domination. Near the end of the article, Mr. Robbins is quoted as saying, “Foster is extremely naïve about the political consequences of his film.”
I’ve stated on more than one occasion that I think the main problem with Foster Gamble is that he is naïve. I don’t think he’s a racist and I don’t think he’s a bad person. I’ve even begun to question whether I think his commitment to conspiracy theorist ideology runs very deep. But what I hear Mr. Robbins saying here is exactly what I’ve been thinking for the past five months.
What Does This Mean For Thrive?
In my view, the statement issued yesterday, and the public dissociation of nine prominent people interviewed in the film from the finished product, is devastating. If Foster Gamble and the makers of Thrive had to misrepresent the film in order to sell it to the people they wanted to appear in it, as the nine undersigned allege, what does that say about the validity of the film and its message as a whole?
Thrive’s credibility has already suffered so many blows that very little of it remains. The inclusion of David Icke as a reliable source was just the tip of the iceberg. This very blog exposed further questions of credibility, when I published statements by inventor David Farnsworth who claims that the “free energy” device shown in Thrive and attributed to Adam Trombly was not in fact invented by Trombly, and does not do what the film says it does. The implication of that crisis is that, if Mr. Farnsworth’s claims are true, Foster Gamble seems not to have done a very good job in checking his sources and vetting the people who appear in Thrive. Yesterday’s allegation complicates further the question of how this film was made and what was said to the people who participated in it.
I’m curious if Foster Gamble will respond to the statement and if so, what he has to say about how the film was made and what was told to Mr. Robbins and the others who signed the statement.
There will probably be further developments regarding this story in the future. I’ll update this article as events warrant.
Update: 13 April 2012
John Robbins posted a comment on this article today in which he states that Adam Trombly has also signed the repudiation of the film.
I’m trying to learn more about this, especially Mr. Trombly’s reasons for doing so. If he has indeed walked away from Thrive, this represents the most significant defection yet–and an even more serious blow to the Thrive organization.
In a note posted on the movie’s official Facebook account, an unnamed spokesman said that Foster and Kimberly Gamble are traveling and will respond more fully later, but they didn’t knowingly misrepresent the film. The response quotes the disclaimer on the film that says they (the filmmakers) don’t agree with everything the people in the movie say. Presumably that works both ways.
I look forward to hearing what more the Thrive people have to say. But if even someone as closely identified with the film as Adam Trombly has been (up until this point) is scrambling for a life preserver, I’d venture a guess that Thrive is starting to resemble a sinking ship.
.
Exclusive: Allegations About Adam Trombly Present Potential Credibility Crisis for Thrive. (UPDATED!)
This blog, originally published March 16, 2012, was updated on March 20, and again on March 22 and March 23. Scroll to the end for the updates.
A very serious issue has come to my attention this week regarding Adam Trombly—one of the people showcased in Thrive—which potentially raises very troubling questions about the movie, its message and the process used by the filmmakers to vet its claims. Simply put: a person has come forward stating that the machine Thrive claims was invented by Adam Trombly was not, in fact, invented by him, and that the machine shown in the film does not do what Thrive claims it does.
At 35:17 of Thrive, at the beginning of the section of the film where Adam Trombly and his supposed inventions are showcased, a photograph of an unfamiliar machine appears on the screen. At this point of the film narrator Foster Gamble is describing Adam Trombly and the dynamo he supposedly built, inspired by the “torus” shape that so fascinates Mr. Gamble. The same photograph of the same strange-looking machine, in mirror reverse, appears again at 36:29 of the film, as Mr. Gamble is talking about how Mr. Trombly’s machine was “taken” in a “government raid,” presumably ordered by the administration of the first George Bush, after Mr. Trombly demonstrated the machine to the U.S. Senate and before the United Nations.
Here’s the problem: an inventor named David Farnsworth has this week claimed publicly that Adam Trombly didn’t actually build that machine—that it was actually built by David Farnsworth himself. Furthermore, Mr. Farnsworth has presented, publicly on the web, evidence to support this claim. Further still, Mr. Farnsworth has stated that the machine attributed to Mr. Trombly in Thrive does not do in real life what the movie claims it does.
I will present these claims in turn. But first, some background.
Who Is Adam Trombly and What Does He Say In Thrive?
In the early history of this blog I ran an article entitled, “Who Is Adam Trombly?” which sought to present the facts about Mr. Trombly’s background and the machine that Foster Gamble asserts in the film that he invented and demonstrated before the Senate. Thrive maintains that Mr. Trombly’s machine is a “free energy device” which can produce unlimited energy for free that has the potential to power the whole world. The film strongly suggests that the inspiration of this technology comes from extraterrestrial sources, communicated to us somewhat ambiguously through crop circles. This technology, so Thrive tells us, is being suppressed by a “Global Domination Elite” for fear of what it might do to the profits of traditional energy companies. In my article, I demonstrated why all of these conclusions are incorrect.
What Is The Allegation?
The best and easiest way to summarize the claims made against Mr. Trombly is to quote a statement made Wednesday on the web page of Global Energy Systems, an entity with which David Farnsworth has been associated from time to time. (Update: this link may become unavailable, but I have been given permission to mirror the page on this blog). Here’s what they have to say:
“A new movie has been produced by Foster Gamble, called Thrive. In it the filmmaker interviews Adam Trombly about suppressed technologies. Trombly talks about a generator that he and Kahn developed, but the generator that he shows in the photos (both on his website and in the film) are NOT of his closed path homopolar generator, they are photos of a device invented and built entirely by David Farnsworth in 1996. Farnsworth was also the man who invented, designed, and built the solid state generator with the 54:1 output ratio that was shown working by Farnsworth & Trombly to the U.S. Congress in 1989 right before Adam went and spoke to the United Nations.
How do we know this? Farnsworth is one of the consulting engineers who sometimes works with GES, and he has graciously agreed to allow us to post a few of the original photos of his generator taken with a Polaroid in his lab in Oregon. To help you compare them to Trombly’s photos, we have also included one of them below. There is a world of difference between those who can and do, and those who only talk and build their own egos. The GES team is real.
“Adam Trombly has never requested, nor have I ever given, permission to use my photos in any way. Nor was my permission sought or given prior to my photos being used in the movie Thrive, or at any time since. — David Farnsworth”
On the same page is posted an open letter from David Farnsworth in which he expresses his thoughts both on Mr. Trombly and on Foster Gamble’s use of him in Thrive:
“I’ve tried to no avail several times to contact Forest [sic] Gamble at the Thrive website. He will not respond to me. I wanted to explain to him that Adam Trombly and I were friends at one time, but at no time did we ever work together. We talked on the phone many times, and in person occasionally, but they were one way conversations, not collaboration. I was telling him how the things that I was doing worked, just to have someone to talk to as I processed ideas. Ninety percent of the time he never really listened, and when he did it was to copy buzzwords to use in conversations with other people….
I do find that Adam Trombly’s memory is not very good at all. Sadly, I think he believes the things that he says, as if hearing it or talking about it creates a false reality in his mind that somehow he actually did it.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a Polaroid must be worth a million, since it cannot be faked. That is why I gave permission for GES, and only GES, to scan the originals and publish my copyrighted photos.”
Due to the obviously sensitive copyright issues involved with the photos of this machine, I can’t reproduce them here on this blog. I suggest, however, that if you have a copy of the Thrive movie, fast-forward to 36:29 and freeze-frame the image. Then click the link to the statement on the GES website which includes the photos. You’ll see that not only is it the same machine, but it’s exactly the same photo. This is the only image of Mr. Trombly’s machine that ever appears in the Thrive movie. Mr. Farnsworth is unequivocal in his claim that Mr. Trombly did not have permission to use the photo, and that he did not create the machine that it depicts. It is my understanding that he’s contemplating legal action to cause the picture of his machine to be removed from the Thrive movie.
Who Is David Farnsworth and What Does He Do?
In researching this article, I interviewed David Farnsworth. He isn’t a scientist, has no degrees, and has never claimed that he has. He is an inventor, and for many years he’s been working on trying to develop a more efficient form of generator. The machines that he’s been developing do not violate the laws of physics as they are commonly understood. He does not, and never has, claimed that the machines he’s worked on are “free energy machines” or “zero point energy” devices. He emphasized to me, in a direct quote: “Free energy does not exist!” In fact he repeated this statement several times to make sure I got it. He told me that the machines of the types he’s working on cost millions of dollars, that private and government R&D institutions are sinking large amounts of money into developing them, and that they don’t actually create energy out of nothing. The claims of Adam Trombly and Thrive regarding the nature and capabilities of this type of technology, Mr. Farnsworth told me, are wildly inaccurate and exaggerated.
So What Is The Machine in the Photo?
The machine depicted in the photo is called a “mechanical homopolar amplifier.” This is a device that generates electricity using magnetic fields. It sounds exotic, and in some ways it is, but homopolar devices are not science fiction; they’ve been around since 1831. A homopolar generator works entirely consistently with the laws of science as we know them. You can read about homopolar generators here and here. The promise of these machines is that they can generate power much more efficiently than more conventional generators. However, they are by no means “free.” They are very expensive to build, they need fuel, and they break down just like any other machines. The way Mr. Farnsworth described it to me, these types of machines do hold the promise for significant energy savings. But what he described to me was entirely within the realm of science—completely unlike the magical machines that Thrive wants you to believe can solve the world’s energy crisis with the wave of a magic wand, and which are supposedly being suppressed by the “Global Domination Elite.”
What’s Adam Trombly’s Involvement With the Machine in the Photo?
According to David Farnsworth, not much. As you can see from the statement posted on the GES website, Mr. Farnsworth maintains that he did not collaborate with Adam Trombly, but merely described projects to him over the phone that he was working on, including the mechanical homopolar amplifier depicted in the photo. He repeated this assertion during my interview with him. Mr. Farnsworth is angry that Adam Trombly appeared in the Thrive movie as if the machine was his own—and stated again that what the machine actually does in real life is different than what Mr. Trombly and Foster Gamble claim in Thrive.
Obviously, we can’t tell from a single 15-year-old Polaroid photo who built what, when, or whose design it was. However, consider this point: if Mr. Trombly designed and built the machine himself, wouldn’t he be able to present a photo of it that isn’t controversial—meaning, a photo about which there is no question as to where it came from, who took it, or what it depicts? For that matter, why didn’t Mr. Trombly actually show the real device on-screen in Thrive, doing right on-camera what he and Mr. Gamble claim that it does? These questions are clearly not conclusive, but they do raise legitimate questions about the provenance of the machine shown in Thrive.
What Does Adam Trombly Say?
To my knowledge, Adam Trombly has not publicly responded to Mr. Farnsworth’s allegations. However, I have been told about an email exchange, purportedly between Mr. Farnsworth and Adam Trombly shortly after the release of Thrive which seems to indicate that Mr. Trombly’s involvement with the machine shown in Thrive is casual at best.
In my interview with him, Mr. Farnsworth issued a direct challenge to Adam Trombly. He said, “Adam, show us the generator you built. Show us anything that you have built.”
If Adam Trombly chooses to respond to this challenge, I’ll be more than happy to publicize his response right here on this blog.
What Does Foster Gamble Say?
This controversy is going public for the first time in this blog post. However, it’s been simmering for some time. Foster Gamble has, until just a few days ago, been a regular on a forum devoted to the work and philosophy of the late Arthur Young, who invented the Bell Helicopter. Some of the regulars on that forum—a few of which post frequent comments on this blog—asked Mr. Gamble about the allegations of David Farnsworth against Adam Trombly. Here’s Foster Gamble’s response in its entirety:
“Mr. Farnsworth’s name was added to the picture of this device on our web site several months ago.
The detailed source and attribution for the device is being sorted out by the two inventors. When they achieve clarity, we will make whatever further corrections might serve the truth. Unfortunately, with Mr. Farnsworth there have been past incidents with Mr. Trombly where the truth has been challenging to determine.
We are dedicated to portraying the truth as best we can and that is why we spent a great deal of time and resources to fact check independently. Of the over 150 facts portrayed in THRIVE, there have been about three corrections which have seemed to hold validity and were posted on the site in the appropriate places.
Tom’s concerns actually seem to me to be only to undermine THRIVE or attack me, as evidenced by his continual stream of negativity.
Foster”
“Tom,” the moderator of the Arthur Young forum, has posted numerous comments on this blog since almost its inception. He is also a skeptic and has been consistently critical of Thrive.
As you can see from the open letter posted on the GES website, Mr. Farnsworth has attempted to contact Mr. Gamble and ask about the photo and the controversy. As of this writing Mr. Gamble has not responded to him.
What Does All This Mean?
The purpose of this article is not to adjudicate the objective truth of who designed the machine in the photo. I cannot do that. I’m not going to lead you to a conclusion. Mr. Farnsworth has told his story and presented evidence that he says supports it. I’ve tried, in this article, to present his story and direct you to that evidence so that you, the readers of this blog, can judge for yourselves whether his claims have merit. I do believe we should hear directly from Adam Trombly and Foster Gamble on these questions; I’ll get to that in a moment.
If Mr. Farnsworth’s claims are true, then I believe it presents a serious problem for Foster Gamble and the credibility of Thrive as a whole. The idea of these “free energy” machines is key to Thrive’s overall message, and for whatever reason Foster Gamble elected to present Adam Trombly as an exemplar of this phenomenon. Now it seems at least possible that Mr. Gamble did not do very much due diligence before inviting Adam Trombly to appear on-screen in Thrive. It would seem that at a bare minimum, Mr. Gamble should have asked to see Mr. Trombly’s machine in operation with his own eyes, and satisfied himself—from a legal standpoint, if no other—that the assertions made about both its creation and its operation are actually true. If Mr. Farnsworth’s allegations are true, it seems likely that Foster Gamble put Mr. Trombly and his machine into Thrive after doing nothing more than looking at a single photograph of the machine. This is from a person who claims, as you see in his statement above, that “We are dedicated to portraying the truth as best we can and that is why we spent a great deal of time and resources to fact check independently.”
Furthermore, if this criticism is apposite, one can argue that a pattern is emerging. There has already been considerable controversy over Mr. Gamble’s inclusion of David Icke as an important source in Thrive. This blog has run an article discussing that issue. I stated in that article that I believe Mr. Gamble is genuinely unaware of the serious difficulties and credibility issues that David Icke brings to the table. If Mr. Farnsworth’s allegations are true, it would seem a similar lack of vetting and foresight went into the decision to include Adam Trombly and the claims he makes about his machine. In short, viewers of Thrive have every reason to be skeptical that the film was well researched or that its sources were given any substantial vetting. Consequently, the overall credibility of the film is open to serious question.
I’ve already stated that my purpose in this article is to report that the allegations have been made about Mr. Trombly, and to present the tools with which you, the reader, may evaluate them. I’ll make two other comments that may be relevant to the general issue of credibility.
First, Mr. Farnsworth was completely open about his claims, and he invited and encouraged me to check them out in whatever way I saw fit. (I am, in fact, continuing to do research on this matter, the results of which will likely be published in another article). At the conclusion of our interview he even invited me to visit his lab in person and see first-hand what his inventions are and what they do—an invitation I may, in fact, accept. This is telling. Typically, people who claim to have invented “free energy” machines are very reluctant to show the world what their devices really are and what they do—often hiding behind excuses that disclosing what it is they’re doing will open them up to retribution by evil powers-that-be, etc. Mr. Farnsworth, however, has not invented a “free energy” or “zero point energy” machine; he was very clear and explicit about what his devices do and how they do it. What he said about these devices is markedly different than the grandiose claims made about them in Thrive.
Secondly, as this story has broken, I’ve become aware—from sources other than Mr. Farnsworth—that there are others out there who say they can make similar claims about Adam Trombly (not necessarily about claims specific to Thrive, though some are), as well as people interviewed in Thrive who feel that the filmmakers used their appearances in extremely misleading ways. I can’t be more specific until and unless these persons go public with their concerns, and I caution everyone against reading too much into this. But, if true, this does suggest at least a certain carelessness regarding how the film was put together and the vetting done of its major claims.
A Fair Resolution: Let’s Hear The Other Side.
I wish to make clear that I think it’s important to handle this matter fairly. If Adam Trombly or Foster Gamble want to comment on anything raised in this article, I will make the Thrive Debunked blog an open, fair and complete platform for whatever they want to say in response.
I would like to have heard directly from Adam Trombly regarding this matter before publishing this article. I’m simply not sure how to contact him; others have attempted to get comment from him but so far to no avail. Foster Gamble is similarly difficult to contact. However, as I suspect that he reads this blog, I venture a guess that he knows what’s posted here.
If the claims made in the Thrive movie about the machine purportedly created by Adam Trombly are true, it will be exceedingly easy to neutralize my criticism of them and my questions about them. I invite and encourage Adam Trombly to present his “free energy” machine in a public forum and demonstrate before all the world how it works and that it does what he claims in Thrive that it does. If Mr. Farnsworth’s concerns are meritless, it should be easy to demonstrate that as well: Mr. Trombly should simply produce the machine itself, in his possession and under his control, and show the world some documentation indicating that he designed and built the machine. I have no doubt that he can do this without jeopardizing proprietary rights or patent secrets to which he would be legally entitled; after all, Mr. Farnsworth is willing to do it regarding his inventions, by inviting me into his lab to see for myself, so why can’t Adam Trombly do the same thing?
If Mr. Trombly produces evidence demonstrating that he designed and built the machine in Thrive and substantiating the claims he and Foster Gamble make in the film about its operation and potential, I will be more than happy to present that evidence on this blog in a high-profile manner. It is true that I’m a skeptic regarding “free energy” or “zero point energy,” which I believe do not exist. However, it wouldn’t take much to change my view on this: merely reliable, verifiable, conclusive evidence of such a machine in operation, in such a way that its results can be replicated and explained by others. Show me that evidence, and I’m a believer.
My offer to give Adam Trombly and/or Foster Gamble the floor on my blog, which is obviously highly critical of Thrive, should demonstrate that I’m interested in facts that can be proven and evidence that can be examined. My entire approach to Thrive hasn’t wavered since the beginning: show me the evidence. If I was, as many of my critics on this blog have claimed, a “paid disinformation agent” or a “troll” only interested in presenting material critical of Thrive, I would have nothing to gain by offering to present the other side of the story. I can be reached at muertos@gmail.com.
Conclusion
David Farnsworth has raised questions regarding Adam Trombly and the machine that Thrive claims he built. At issue is whether Trombly really did build the machine, what it is and what it can do. If Mr. Farnsworth’s claims are true, I argue that there is room for serious doubt about the level of vetting that the makers of Thrive did regarding the people who appear in the film and the claims they make. This holds troubling implications for the credibility of the film as a whole.
I believe Adam Trombly and Foster Gamble should respond to these concerns. If the concerns raised are off base, let’s all understand why so there’s no further doubt about the issue. I would like to see specific, verifiable evidence that the machine shown in Thrive was built by Adam Trombly and that it does what he and Mr. Gamble say that it does. If they should choose to present such evidence, I’ll be more than happy to publicize it on this blog. Consequently, if they do that, this will be a long step forward to addressing the questions of the overall credibility of Thrive.
I’m sure more will be happening regarding these issues in the future, so check back again for more updates.
Update I: 20 March 2012
Foster Gamble has been in contact with David Farnsworth. Mr. Farnsworth has given permission for me to post the text of his exchange with Mr. Gamble.
I’m not leaving anything out of this quotation, and I am, for the moment, refraining from editorial comment. Here’s the words that went between them. Mr. Gamble’s questions and comments are in normal typeface; Mr. Farnsworth’s answers are presented in boldface.
Dear David and Adam,I had hoped that the two of you had worked out any disagreements about the validity of any pictures, devices and historical accounts concerning anything portrayed in THRIVE. When I added the Farnsworth name to the picture on our website, I thought the issue was resolved. The communications I am now receiving from David indicate there is still an issue.
I have no first hand knowledge of what went on between the two of you, so I have to depend on your accounts, or secondary witnesses, for my accuracy and the reputation of our film and movement..
Will you each please give me a brief written account of the pertinent facts I need to know?1) Did you two work together on any energy devices? If so – when? and do you have any pictures of it/them? If not, what happened to them?No we did not. I built a solid state system by myself with no collaboration from Adam Trombly, and it was Ambassador Jim George that set up a demonstration which Adam and I attended in 1988 almost 25 years ago. I paid for the motor home, the travel, and everything to get to Washington, DC and New York. Adam had no involvement in that design, he was just along because he enjoyed talking. As far as the pictures are concerned, in that raid in 97 all of my original photos of the solid-state generator were taken from my lab, not Adam’s. (To this day I still suspect that Adam himself in a small way or otherwise had something to do with the raid in 97. I cannot prove it but my instincts tell me he did because of something that Jim George told me back at that time and I will never forget it as long as I live.) That is also one of the reasons why I’m very bitter at Adam.2) Did any of these devices have over-unity or super efficiency capabilities – if so, which?Only the solid-state device. The device shown in your movie was not over-unity, at least not in the traditional sense. It produced mechanical energy that was over-unity, not electrical, so the claims that Adam Trombly made on his website were incorrect and not valid.3) Did you take any device(s) to demonstrate at the UN and Congress.Yes we did. We demonstrated the solid-state device that I had developed, that again Adam had no part of. And we did not show it to the whole Congress because Bush senior called a meeting and circumvented our demonstration.
4) Were these demonstrations undermined by the Bush Sr. administration?yes5) Were any of your laboratories raided? When?YES. In 97 the laboratory that I owned in Forest Grove, Oregon was raided. I was the one that got hurt, I was the one that they gave a problem to, and I was also the one that went to Federal Court and I have the papers to prove it. I even have the pictures of all of my equipment in the Federal warehouse that they destroyed before it was returned to me.6) Were you personally ever threatened or harmed by suppressive forces?Yes indirectly through the gov’t , IRS, and investors. There were several times when my family at the time and I got phone calls in the middle of the night threatening that I would not bring anything out regarding this technology.7) Who built the device pictured in THRIVE?I am the sole inventor and builder of the device that was shown in your movie Thrive. Adam Trombly had nothing to do with it; no collaboration was conferred.8) What were its capabilities?The maximum capability of this device electrically was 5kw. Mechanically the device could produce over 30 kw of mechanical energy related to the homopolar effect. Adam knew this at the time when I told him; as usual he misunderstood what I said. The unique part of the photo that you showed in your movie, just so you know; is that the whole device is not there, only part of it. I never showed that to people because I didn’t want anyone to know how it worked, but I would be more than happy to describe it to you and physically give you a demonstration of it. There was also something put in the picture for misdirection, which Adam could never identify; he wouldn’t have the foggiest idea of what I or you would be talking about, yet you can have my facts independently verified once you know what it is. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this device was not built or designed by him.9) Was that device or one like it ever seized?No device that I’ve ever had fell into the hands of anyone. All of my devices were hidden – taken apart so that no one would get them. No device that I have ever built has been seized by anyone, only the things (equipment) that were in my lab.10) What corrections would either of you suggest I make on our website? (It is too late to make changes in the film.)That device belongs to me and solely me. I want you to take it off your web site, and I want it out of your film. Adam Trombly had nothing to do with it and in fact I see how Adam manipulated the opportunity to make everything look like as if it was his. It ain’t gonna work. This is a digital film that you made, and it is very easy to take several frames out of this film. I also asked Max Langenburg if you had permission to use his pictures, and he said you did not. Those pictures say that they belong to a another inventor who does not even know how to build an over-unity device. Max is also a friend of mine. I talked to him as recently as two days ago, and he was shocked to see a his creations in your movie without permission. I also did all of the earthquake technology as well (not Adam), but these are things that you should already know because you claimed you checked them out. So why don’t you go talk to Elizabeth Rauscher, your friend, and find out from her what she thinks of Adam Trombly and what Adam has done to her. All he’s done is lie in all these years. He takes credit for other people’s work and rides on the coattails of their success, or tries to take or steal other people’s information. If you doubt this then check it out yourself.David – I am sorry for any misunderstanding or misrepresentation that might have occurred. My interest is in the truth and I will do everything I can to find and represent it accurately. Along those lines, will you state if you have ever created an over-unity device and are you still? And what is the sources of funding for the work that you are apparently able to continue now without harassment?YES. I have created many over-unity devices which I have never shared with Adam and never will. And yes in fact I am still doing it; I have many now. I would never share anything with that pompous ass with all his wonderful love-talk.My funding is private. (Just so that you know, I collect a lot of bottle caps and I take them to the store, and it’s very hard work but I’m able to fund everything I do myself. ) As Adam Trombly will tell you I’m probably one of the only people on the earth that can build a laboratory that is beyond NASA grade with next to nothing. Well, you can tell him I’ve done it again, with bottle caps.The only one here that needs a reality check is Adam, to start telling the truth. Otherwise he will go on preaching his brotherly love until it makes no sense; I’ve been there and listened to this. When Adam is caught in something that he can’t get out of he starts to show you a little self-pity, then starts crying, tears roll down his cheek, and he wants to make you believe that he’s the only one that has been damaged or hurt. It is simply not true. Yes, he’s gone through some very interesting things in his life; they are all things he caused himself. All he needs to do in his late life is to grow up. And quit acting like this unbelievable victim, and the only one on the planet that has ever lost anything…he’s completely full of BS. I’ve lost 100,000 times more than he will ever lose. And there’s no place anywhere where you have ever heard me say the things that Adam does. You will never hear ‘”oh poor David, I’ve been beat up and knocked out so many times” to gain pity from people. I’m sorry it doesn’t work with me. When he has lost the things that I’ve lost then he can complain, until then keep his mouth shut. I have lost many of my things three times in life and had to start over, while Adam lived a nice beautiful life on the island of Hawaii with his rich girl friend Nancy, that by the way I introduced him to. I’ve never had anybody that helped me in my life or gave me a home like Adam has, or been so lucky to fall into money (like a trust baby and he’s set for life). I wish him the very best, I sincerely mean that, but stop the BS. And no – he cannot have my photos and claim them as his own.
Foster, I would suggest that you call me at [number redacted]. You have given plenty of time to Adam on the phone and listened to all his B.S. I’m curious why you would not want to talk to me on the phone, and do your due diligence. I’m sorry sir I am having a very difficult time in believing in you, so until I see results otherwise, I will continue on the path that I’m going.Adam – I know you have taken considerable risk to come forward with this story so publicly, and I know you have also told me you want the truth to be told.David and Adam – Please help me get any mis-alignments resolved so that the emergence of these vital devices and the understandings they represent can proceed without being hindered by our own unnecessary conflicts. There is enough to deal with from the powers that don’t want everyone to have access to clean, cheap power. Let’s don’t help them by getting bogged down among ourselves.OK Mr. Gamble if you want the un-conflicted truth then start with Adam Trombly, not me. I’ve worked my butt off all these years, while Adam sat in Aspen Colorado enjoying himself. The few times I had him come to my house he would hang upside down in my trailer (Adam will know what I mean) like a monkey and talk to me about complete crap. The only collaboration I ever had with Adam was one direction and one direction only. I have further proof of this in a letter from Tom Wright who introduced me to Adam Trombly. Tom, my dearest friend who I will love always, passed on this last Saturday. I’ve spent half the day crying over him and I probably will not be over this for a long time. But I have paperwork that will validate all of these things written in his hand, and these documents were shown before a Federal Court in Portland, Oregon.Thank you very much for taking the risks you have and for taking the time to respond accurately to these questions and any others I might not have thought to ask.Sincerely,
FosterPs. In childish classic fashion Adam Trombly has blocked my e-mail so you can send this to him.
I assert neither the truth nor falsity of the assertions made by Mr. Farnsworth here; you can see some of my thoughts regarding his claims in the main body of this article. The purpose of this update is to present what has been said.
Update II: 22 March 2012.
To date, Adam Trombly has not responded to Mr. Farnsworth’s claims. However, Mr. Trombly’s daughter has posted a response in a comment to this blog on another article. Here is the link to that original comment. I reproduce it in its entirety here.
First of all, let me introduce myself. My father is Adam Trombly. I was physically present for many of the 11 years that my father worked daily with David Farnsworth. I answered the phone at my home when David would call at least once a day to have “conversations” with my father that were obviously very intense and technical and that from my end definitely did not sound “one-sided.” I was physically present when David Farnsworth showed up at our family home and stayed for over a week to work on projects with my father. David came to our family home after returning from a trip with my father where they did physical demonstrations of the Piezo Ringing Resonance Generator in New York before a speech my father gave at the United Nations, and in Washington DC at the Senate Banking and Finance Committee Hearing Room. That was June of 1989. The demonstrations were real and well received.
When I was touring Colleges in the Pacific Northwest with my father in 1995, we stopped by David Farnsworth’s in-law’s home in Forest Grove, Oregon where David Farnsworth tearfully apologized in person to my father at the dinner table in front of his ex-wife, and his in-laws. He apologized for abusing his relationship with my father, and not giving proper credit to my father, and he apologized for never sending the instruments that he was supposed to share with my father. David said that half of the equipment that he had in his possession should be with my father and he was sorry he had not sent it. He asked for forgiveness and asked for my father to work with him again. He asked me to be a witness of this conversation.
The claims that David Farnsworth is making are false. His contention that he and my father never worked together is absolutely a lie. David Farnsworth and my father Adam Trombly appeared numerous times side by side as partners on CNN and in numerous business negotiations and physical demonstrations of their technologies. David Farnsworth is a brilliant engineer, but paranoid– perhaps as a result of his substance abuse problems which I have witnessed with my own eyes. At one time he disclosed using crystal meth while I was standing in his motorhome/lab. David Farnsworth is not representing the facts correctly. His lies are an insult to my father’s work and legacy. This blog is an insult to a lifetime of work dedicated to providing the world with a clean and safe source of energy. This attack does not serve anyone’s future. I would be happy to testify to all of the above information in a court of law. In fact, I am considering calling my lawyer after reading this!
The last time I spoke with David Farnsworth he called me directly when I was College and he asked me for money because he couldn’t afford to pay the rent at the trailer park where his motor home was parked.Please remove these lies from the internet and provide my father with an apology!
You can read my own response to this comment here. In the meantime, Mr. Farnsworth has asked me to post his response. I do so at his request, and as of now I’ve chosen not to make any editorial comment on this response.
3-21-2012
Well, isn’t this interesting? Adam has decided to bring in his daughter who was about 10 to 12 years old when this happened at the United Nations. First of all, let’s correct the record, again and for the last time.It appears, Adam, that you can’t tell the truth, and neither can your family for any reason, so let’s start the beginning.1. Did we go to the United Nations together?Yes, we did. I rented the motor home with no help from you; it came out of my family’s pocket and Pete’s. We paid for the trip and the equipment and everything to go back there. There were three of us that went out and came back; myself, Terry, and you. Your daughter was never present at that time. You call this device a “Piezo Ringing Resonance Generator”. This device had 32 coils in it, Adam. I never agreed with you on the name that you called it, just because you wanted to give it a name to tell people back east. This device was a simple electromagnetic resonant amplifier that used a very unique electromagnetic path and coils to amplify current and voltage; it had nothing to do with piezo-electric! It was you that went around telling everyone that. And to get it straight, the piezo-electric phenomena that we both discussed on the phone was over the earthquake technology, not the generator. If you remember we used to talk about the piezo-electric effect that was in the earth and if you look in the CNN video the examples were even given related to the piezo-electric affect again not the generator. I have the video if you’d like to have a copy.2. Did we talk on the phone a lot?Yes we did. I only came to your Aspen home once. And I brought you a 3561 Spectrum Analyzer from HP, which you then used to forecast earthquakes with me on the phone. I had to teach you how to use the instrument in absolute detail.I also brought you the coils that I designed and built for my first earthquake instruments, and one coil from my second design which was built by Coiltron in Beaverton, Oregon. I spent most of my time with you explaining to you in detail how it worked, and what the coils did and what they were for. The rest of the time that I was at your place…well Adam, I’m not as low as your daughter – I will let everybody figure that out.Just because a very young Jacqueline, with no technical expertise whatsoever, thought that your side of our phone conversations sounded impressive, does not mean that you significantly contributed to any of my technology except for the things related to the pattern recognition system only.Also I do not want us to forgot one of the nicest people I ever met was William Randolph hearst the second and William purchased the first earthquake equipment that we used. All the equipment after that I got.3. Your daughter also has the time sequence out of place as far as when I came to your home and when we showed everything.4. Did Adam come to my home in Forest Grove?Yes he did.Did I apologize to Adam for not having his name on the earthquake technology that we talked about for many years again related to the pattern recognition system only?Yes, that is true, but in fact I apologized to him for a totally different reason than his daughter stated. I was not able to put Adam on the patent primarily because all of the technology that was ever actually patented was developed by me and that was all the hardware not the software.Did we confer on the technology as far as the pattern recognition system?Yes.Did I ever patent that?No, I did not, only the electronics. If you go look, the pattern recognition system never got completely patented. So in fact there was nothing to put your name on. To this day Adam, the technology works. If you would like to patent the technology related to the pattern recognition system with me I’m more than happy to do that. But I will have to explain it to you again because you still never understood how it really worked, and to be perfectly honest I have made it considerably better in all these years.I threw out many olive leafs to you back then, but you never picked them up. I have many people to prove that, including my ex family that would be David, Kathy’s brother who I’m still very good friends with you may call David if you’d like; also one of them is Kirk Hawkins. You remember Kirk, he would be more than happy to tell you that’s true. He is a personal friend of mine and has been since we met at ISSO. Just so you know Adam, if I abused our friendship in any way, I am truly sorry for that. I just wish you would come clean for the things you did to me.5. As far as the equipment is concerned; I would’ve been more than happy to help you with equipment, which I did. You know I’m one of the best in the world for putting together an incredible lab, but at no time did I ever say that I would give you half of my equipment, most of which was not even related to the earthquake technology which you and I talked about! Please, let’s be real about this. You did not know how to use equipment anyway. You barely knew how to use an oscilloscope, let alone a spectrum analyzer; I had to show you how to use one. And that is the truth. And if you’re so good at what you do, why don’t you have a lab now? Why don’t you have equipment? Why don’t you do all of these things now? You certainly have the money don’t you? I had far far less, so why am I capable of doing so much more than you? You know what I find interesting, Adam, is that you have had the money all along from your marriage and have been able to talk to many people. So why haven’t you been able to do all of these incredible things that you talk about? Can you explain that to me, and all of us? This is the reason why I stated that you are all talk, no reality.6. As far as all of the statements above, I am also more than happy to take a lie detector test to verify that everything that I’ve said is true, before God and everyone. So let’s hear from you now Adam, not your daughter.7. I have never claimed anything about Adam Trombly personally – this is all professional. The only thing that I’ve stated to anyone and all of you is that the pictures that Adam Trombly has on the movie Thrive do not belong to him, he did not have permission to use them, and he misrepresents not only his own involvement with those devices but also what they do. That’s how this started; let’s stay focused on the issue. Making personal attacks simply does not answer the questions or solve the problem.8. Did Adam and I ever appear on CNN together?Yes, only once. I have the videos to validate and prove it and in the video anyone can see that they were talking about me more than Adam and when the video was taken Adam knew at the time that it was unbalanced and unfair but I could not redo it and I could never talked to him about it because he would get upset those things were not my fault he needs to talk to CNN not me we did the interview together he knew it was fair.Did Adam and I ever appear on any other program together?Never, and I can prove that because I have all the videos of everything that I personally ever did and Adam knows that. I can also validate and prove that I always mentioned him in every video that I was in, but for some reason the news reporters would edit it out in the final broadcast. And I was never able to convince Adam otherwise. We argued many times on the phone about that; I always told him the truth but when it came to that he never believed it. I’m sorry Adam but I always told you the truth.9. Ladies and gentlemen I would like all of you to know that yes, in my past I did drugs, tried marijuana and cocaine, methamphetamine and a few other drugs. Yes I did, and I freely admit that. I have never lied to anyone about anything I have ever done but I’m not the only one that did things like that – let’s see if my accuser can come clean as well. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Once again, I will be more than happy to take a lie detector test in a court of law to validate that I’m telling the truth, not only about my own drug use but also the abundance of use and abuse I witnessed on the part of others. Shall we, Adam?I am deeply saddened that it has to resort to something like this, but I am not a person who is afraid of the truth. I don’t hide behind family, children, other people, pictures, and semi-accurate information to make myself look good. Also back in those days, when I was slim and looked a lot better, just about everywhere I went I wore high heel boots with tee shirts and leggings, like jogging pants. Adam never liked that (he was always about appearances), so that is likely to be the next thing he has some family member bring up. I however am not a phony and cannot be embarrassed by his third-hand attempts at personal insults.10. I would also like to bring up one more thing. Adam do you remember the Etheric Analyzer? Did you know that I won an award for my work in subtle energy research, given to me by the USPA? Elizabeth Rauscher was there. When I tried to tell you about something fantastic related to that, do you remember asking me sarcastically “What are you gonna do, tell everybody that you see little devils on the screen?” You missed out on such an incredible technology, Adam, as you have on everything I ever tried to talk to you about. And quite honestly, you will never believe where and how far I took that technology. But that was always the theme of our talks; you had to be the one that was right, and always tried to make me feel that I don’t know what I’m talking about.I thank your daughter for the compliment and saying that I’m brilliant. I will return the compliment by saying that you are too in many unique ways, but Adam it is time (and time is running out for this world) that you state the truth as well. You talk about God and Jesus; well, isn’t telling the truth what they would want you to do? Walk the talk, Adam.And by the way, I am not “paranoid”; I’ve actually had my lab destroyed, but not for the reasons that you have stated.Just so you know, this is not “David’s truth”, this is just the truth. I have stated it before, and I will say it again, I never cared what people thought about me, I only cared about my work. I always have. I wanted someone to share it with (at one time Adam that was you), someone that I cared for very much. It was not me that walked away from our friendship, it was you. Now that is a decision you will have to live with. I have moved on and I have new friends now and the people that know me today know me as a very different person than you knew. I tell it the way it is and I don’t hide anything. I’m not proud of my past and the few things that I have done but I’m not ashamed of it either. How about you, Adam?Dave Farnsworth
Tom,
It is important to note that I spoke to Elizabeth Rauscher on Wednesday and she refuted David’s statements. She acknowledged we have known each other since she and Bill were in San Leandro, (1980’s) that it was she and Bill who introduced me to the reality of being able to use an ELF Spectrum Analyzer for earthquake forecasting. She is a wonderful scientist and I enjoyed a wonderful learning experience with Elizabeth Rauscher and Bill Van Bise. We were exploring a new frontier in science which they opened for us all. I am one of the fortunate ones who have been able to put thousands of hours into this science and I am be forever grateful.You sir, have been duped. Just the fact of Elizabeth’s refutation of David’s statements is sufficient to undermine a primary stantion of this illegal, slanderous and immoral attack. David falsely attempted to make Elizabeth the fulcrum upon which my credibility and reputation would be smeared. His statements in his letter are such gross misrepresentations that it necessitates our counter response.For David Farnsworth to say that he never worked with me nor collaborated with me is patently absurd. It pains me more than I can say to have write anything like this. But as they say in a court of law David, Muertos and now you have opened the door.I will inform you that I did not ask my daughter to respond to the misrepresentations of David Farnsworth. She is testifying to a part of her factual experience. We never did find out how David got her cell number when she was at Colorado College but he called her for rent money (for the RV Park where the motor home he was driving was parked) and money to feed his son. My daughter called me and of course we helped. We are compassionate people and we were shocked and saddened to see the very bad condition he was in. So my daughter took time off from her busy schedule at school to lend a hand. To call her “childlike” casts you in a very strange light indeed.I will also inform you that there is plenty of documentary evidence, including videos of lectures I gave at more than one university years before I ever met Mr. Farnsworth, including bonafide witnesses who are prepared to testify, should the need arise that I lectured about and was interviewed in Los Angeles before the Whittier quake and informed the public that there was a high probability of a major earthquake before it happened. I got that information through Elizabeth and Bill at their lab in San Leandro which I told every audience to whom I lectured. Since this is an original discovery of science there is no place else I could have been informed but by those who generously shared the discovery and the discourse surrounding the discovery with me. How else could I have known that the quake was to happen prior to the actual event? I cited them as the discoverers and the original inventors as any good scientist would do and I have all the witnesses and proof I could ever require in a court of law. The auditoriums were packed at UCLA and other venues.David claims to have had patents regarding earthquake forecasting technologies prior to ever meeting me. Really? Does he think that the world will reorganize itself to substantiate that?That being said, I doubt you are prepared for the fact that David has drawn you into an entanglement which unfortunately exposes you as well. For him to have falsely cited Elizabeth as his cohort is very problematic for him.We are preparing a longer response, but we are reviewing our next steps. I have already covered many other details with Foster and we will soon release them in to the wild. Ambassador George also has sadly corroborated the details of what my daughter and I have said.You have implied that I am a coward. It is an unfortunate error.One more thing, as regards the famous photograph of the rotor. The yoke within which it rotates and without which it cannot produce torque is not in the photograph.That photograph was provided to me by Mr. Farnsworth when I requested it for the Project Earth website when we were friends and colleagues. He has acknowledged providing me with the photograph. One cannot retroactively declare “copyright” twelve years after publication. The fact he did so just prior to the release of the movie Thrive made me suspicious as to where the pressure was coming from on him or if this is just really him. David was once my friend and even sent me an email not long ago calling me “old friend”. The next thing I know, Voila! David is on the attack again. Very strange.For you too imply that I made my daughter defend me and that somehow her defense is a tacit admission of guilt on my part is just pathetic. My daughter is a grown woman and hardly childlike. You, on the other hand, and not I will soon have some explaining to do.Adam TromblyPS You may come back and say that this does not address Foster’s ten points, but believe me, we ( he and I ) have discussed and I have addressed in writing to him and some of my other colleagues more than ten points. Believe it or not this is not the most important part of our lives. In the meantime, you might suggest some site deodorizer for your friend’s blog.I apologize for any typos.
Who Is Nassim Haramein?
One of the people whose views the Thrive movie showcases is a man named Nassim Haramein. A caption on the screen identifies Mr. Haramein as “Cosmologist, Inventor.” Beginning at 12:23 in the film, excerpts of interviews with Haramein begin and continue for almost the next ten minutes. Mr. Haramein opines on questions of astronomy and ancient history. Even before Thrive, Mr. Haramein was well-known in New Age circles. This article will evaluate what Mr. Haramein claims in Thrive, and also try to answer the question, who is he?
What Does Nassim Haramein Claim in Thrive?
In his first appearance in Thrive at 12:23, Nassim Haramein appears in the context of the discussion about the “torus” design which Thrive creator Foster Gamble believes is the key to free energy. Mr. Haramein refers to “big arms of galaxies spinning around” and a claim is made at 12:34 that the galactic halo is shaped like a torus. A little later, at 16:12, Mr. Haramein appears again, talking about the Osirian Temple in Abydos, Egypt. This discussion occurs in the context of the “Flower of Life” design that Foster Gamble asserts is of extraterrestrial origin. At 16:32 of the film, Mr. Haramein states that the Flower of Life at the Osirian Temple is “burned into the atomic structure of the rock in some extraordinary way.” No backup is given for this claim at all. In fact, this claim is false. It is the only factual claim that I know of, to date, which the Thrive creators have retracted.
Mr. Haramein continues to appear sporadically over the next few minutes. He appears again at 18:20 talking about the Forbidden City in China, “where the sun gods reside.” Later still, at 20:10, Mr. Haramein again refers to “sun gods” from Egyptian, Incan and Mayan culture who supposedly came to earth and taught ancient peoples engineering, writing and science. This is clearly an assertion that “ancient astronauts” are supposedly responsible for great feats by ancient civilizations, who were mistaken by these civilizations for “sun gods.”
At 21:25, Foster Gamble states that “Nassim has impressive evidence to back up his theories.” He does not state what this “impressive evidence” actually is.
Is Nassim Haramein Right About the Things He Says in Thrive?
Not very much of the time. A lot of what Mr. Nassim states in Thrive is simply false. On this blog we have already debunked much of the material he presents. For example, we’ve already noted that his claim about the “Flower of Life” in the Osirian Temple is incorrect. It is not “burned into the atomic structure of the rock.” In this article, which debunks the idea of “ancient astronauts,” I explain at length how and why Mr. Haramein’s assertions about ancient civilizations and ancient history are wrong. For instance, the Egyptian and Mayan “sun gods” had nothing to do with science or engineering. A case can be made that the Incan “sun god” did supposedly teach some knowledge to the Incas, but the context in which Mr. Haramein employs this idea—supposedly to illustrate that “ancient astronauts” exist—is totally incorrect. There is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world indicating that aliens visited ancient civilizations thousands or hundreds of years ago. The only basis for the “ancient astronaut” claims is the supposition that particular structures, such as pyramids, were beyond the capability of ancient peoples to construct, and therefore they must have been built by aliens. As I explained in the article debunking ancient astronauts, that supposition is totally unsupportable. Furthermore, he’s also wrong about the Forbidden City being “where the sun gods reside.” The Forbidden City, built in Beijing in the early 1400s, was where the terrestrial emperor resided, not the “sun gods.”
Who is Nassim Haramein?
The subject that concerns the bulk of Mr. Haramein’s testimony in Thrive is ancient astronauts. He is clearly identified with that theory. In fact, while this article was being written, in late February 2012 yet another YouTube video popped up of Mr. Haramein claiming that certain archaeological artifacts “prove” ancient astronauts existed. These claims are no different than the basic gist of his claims in Thrive. All proceed from an assumption that “ancient peoples couldn’t possibly have created this!” because whatever is being examined is judged from the standpoint of modern technological and scientific understanding.
However closely he’s associated with ancient astronauts in Thrive, this theory is not Mr. Haramein’s main claim to fame. Who is he, then and what his he known for?
According to the bio that appears on his own site—for the Resonance Project—Nassim Haramein was born in Switzerland in 1962 and began developing, at the age of nine, a “hyperdimensional theory of matter and energy.” His bio goes on to state:
“Haramein has spent most of his life researching the fundamental geometry of hyperspace, studying a variety of fields from theoretical physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology and chemistry to anthropology and ancient civilizations. Combining this knowledge with a keen observation of the behavior of nature, he discovered a specific geometric array that he found to be fundamental to creation and from which the foundation for his Unified Field Theory emerged.”
Mr. Haramein often gives lectures at conferences, and you can see many of his talks on YouTube. The topic he lectures on most often is something called the “Schwarzschild Proton,” which we’ll get to in a minute. I find it interesting that neither the Thrive movie nor Haramein’s own website list any degrees or credentials. That is noteworthy, because people who do have degrees or credentials and who are interviewed in Thrive are usually presented with a title card on-screen that lists what their credentials are—example, “Dr. Jack Kasher, Ph.D.—Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Nebraska” (31:01). I have also not been able to locate a C.V. (curriculum vitae), sort of an academic résumé, for Mr. Haramein. If anyone is aware that he has advanced degrees in physics or other relevant fields, please pass on the information to me and I will gladly add that to this blog.
What Is the “Schwarzchild Proton” Claim?
This blog has already debunked what Mr. Haramein claims in Thrive, both in this article and the previous articles. Let’s move on to some of the other claims he makes other than the ones in the film. Although the focus of this blog is on the film, Mr. Haramein’s other claims are relevant to judging his overall credibility as a source on matters of science and ancient history.
The “Schwarzschild Proton” theory states that a proton is really a miniature black hole. I am not trained in physics, but what I do know of it, this assertion is completely outside the realm of science as we understand it. Needless to say, the scientific community is not impressed by the “Schwarzschild Proton.” In fact, it’s very difficult to get a scientist to spend their time debunking it. Nevertheless, there are scientific opinions about Mr. Haramein’s theories. Here’s one, a fairly high profile blog called “Up,” which ran several articles about Mr. Haramein and his various theories. The creator of this blog, Bob (also known as Bob-a-Thon), had this to say about Mr. Haramein and his paper:
“(a) His overall argument is circular, which means it shows nothing. A hypothesis is presented that a proton might be considered as if it were a black hole, and his first conclusion, after a few pages of equations, is that the forces between them would be very strong, like the forces in a nucleus. But this goes without saying! If you pretend that something is as heavy as a thing can be, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that the forces would be as strong as a force can be. There’s no significance in this whatsoever.
(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons. This does seem a bit silly – but theoretical physicists do hypothesise apparently silly things sometimes, so that’s not a deal-breaker. For obvious reasons, though, you need a very convincing reason to do something like that, including an explanation as to why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else), and none is given.
c) The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level. This could be considered a plus – all scientists would agree that there’s nothing better than a simple theory, if it works. But Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks (these are the only references cited in the paper), things that have been explored thoroughly for decades, and he’s using them in a pretty simplistic way. It’s unlikely that he’ll find anything that hasn’t been found before by doing this. What he has found is some values for things that look suspiciously like what he knew when he started. This is often what happens when you go around in a circle.
It’s a bit of a joke to claim that anything profound can come from this kind of thing. But again, it looks cool, and it’s clearly enough to impress a lot of his followers.”
Bob went on to post a lengthy scientific debunking of the Schwarzschild Proton theory. You can find it here. I won’t reproduce it here because it’s full of a lot of very specific scientific jargon and equations that I don’t think I need to show here so long as it’s available at the link. Suffice it to say that Bob’s blog makes a strong argument that Mr. Haramein’s theory does not have any validity when judged against actual provable science.
Bob’s conclusion, at the end of that article, was the following:
“Haramein claims to be doing serious science. He claims to have unified the forces of nature, and to have created a unified field theory. He claims to be able to point out where all ‘the other physicists’ are going wrong. He claims, moreover, that his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has won serious academic acclaim. All of these are patently false.
The only sensible conclusion from looking at this example of his work is that he is utterly incompetent as a physicist – even with the help of his hired academics, whose “advice and careful reading of the manuscript” didn’t reveal any of the myriad of nonsensical implications that a little exploration should have found.
He knows that taking on the air of authority of a research physicist will give weight to his outlandish ideas, many of which are in the language of physics. And he knows that this will bring him followers and cash. Indeed it does.”
It appears likely from this analysis that Mr. Haramein’s claims are not supportable by science. I say it appears likely because I’m not a trained scientist. While I suspect that Bob is a trained and credentialed scientist, we do not know this for certain. Therefore, I’ll state that if someone with at least a Ph.D. in physics is willing to come forward and state (1) that Bob’s debunking of Mr. Haramein’s Schwarzschild Proton theory is fundamentally flawed, and (2) that Mr. Haramein’s theory is correct or at least reasonably arguable in good faith, I will retract this article and issue a high-profile correction.
Good luck. I’ve been searching for a physicist who will comment on Mr. Haramein’s theories on the record since Thrive came out. No one will touch it. It’s that bad.
Here’s what other scientists are willing to say, however. On the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast of January 12, 2011, linked here, Dr. Phil Plait had this to say about a video he saw of Mr. Haramein expounding various astronomical theories (the relevant part starts about 50 minutes in):
“It’s hard to actually describe or understand a place to start or find any sort of grip on the amount of weirdness that this video has in it. I mean, he just says stuff and it doesn’t matter what he’s saying, he just says it. He’s talking about watching Shoemaker Levy 9, the comet, hitting Jupiter back in ’94, and he says, “the community said that comet might not be visible from the earth.” No, actually most astronomers thought it would, and there were a few who said it might not, but we weren’t sure, but that’s how science works…His whole thing, watching this, he’s talking about the tetrahedron dictating the energy about to happen inside Jupiter, and I’m thinking tetrahedrons, certain specific latitudes, he’s talking about Hoagland! And five seconds later “this is the theory of consultant to NASA, Richard C. Hoagland!”…This is so bad it’s not even wrong…You can watch this guy giving talks about pyramids and Egyptians and he just says stuff…it’s made-up silliness.”
Richard C. Hoagland is an infamous pseudoscience purveyor and conspiracy theorist. He’s most famous for expounding the ridiculous Face on Mars theory from the ‘80s. Any mention of Hoagland as a credible source should set off alarm bells.
Need more to convince you that Mr. Haramein’s theories are not good science? Check some physicists kibbutzing about him over at Reddit. Here are some of the comments:
“For some reason I was browsing /r/psychonaut and I saw a video posted of this guy, Nassim Haramein, lecturing about “sacred geometry and unified field theory”. After about 5 seconds you see he’s just making it up as he goes along, misunderstanding even the most basic principles of physics and math(s). He basically just tells people into that whole “new age” thing exactly what they want to hear. This pseudoscientist is either deliberately misleading the public, extremely deluded or mentally ill in some way.”
“We can, but on the other hand we could do physics instead. Nevertheless, I took the liberty of correcting one of your hecklers.”
“You’re probably right… I’m not sure why it bugs me so much. I guess I just think it’s sad that the people who are enjoying his talks are showing an interest in physics and not being told anything that resembles real physics.”
What Does Mr. Haramein Say In Response?
Bob’s “Up” blog engendered a response from Mr. Haramein himself. Here it is. Please go to the link for the full text, as it’s very lengthy. Here are a few excerpts:
“I typically avoid wasting my time participating in these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as “the truth”, I feel obligated to reply.
I actually don’t believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant but that certain life experiences and difficulties can reduce one’s capacity to access deeper levels of awareness that are necessary for creative and fundamental reflection. Here the inhibitors are constraints resulting from a style of education in which what is taught is proclaimed as the truth and the only truth, and where students are discouraged and severely reprimanded if they tend to wander in the awful world of untruth as predetermined by the Obvious Truth Holder…
[H]istory speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As Schopenhauer said, ‘All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’”
Much of the rest of the response is very technical, and those issues, while quite relevant, are beyond the scope of this blog. Nevertheless, Bob responded to the response. Needless to say he wasn’t too impressed:
“So, what to make of all this. To summarise, his rhetoric is great! The bits of physics he’s thrown in look really impressive! If the aim is to wow the fans and seal their contempt for me, he’s done an excellent job.
But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I’ve raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I’m missing something, but I really don’t think he has. I’ll illustrate some of the ways he’s misused physics in his defence later on.
If you disagree – if you can find any single point in there that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics aren’t completely valid – then I’d really love to hear from you. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won’t happen, but it would be great if it did.
Meanwhile, as you can see for yourself, he has had fun doing what he does best – inventing things to entertain his fans, and telling them what they want to hear. He presents this new, conveniently fictionalised version of me to his followers as “an important study for anyone who is interested in my work.”…
The back-and-forth between Bob and Mr. Haramein is actually quite interesting. Because I can only present the smallest snippets of it here, I strongly recommend that anyone interested in evaluating Mr. Haramein’s grasp of physics (or ancient history, for that matter) look at the entire exchange. Looking at this material certainly led me to a a conclusion regarding the level of credibility to which Mr. Haramein is entitled.
A Related Issue: Academia, Credentials, and the Value of Experts.
A key theme that you should see emerging from this analysis is that Mr. Haramein does not and cannot back up any of the major assertions he makes with any evidence or argumentation that passes muster among professionals in the fields he opines on—physics and ancient history. If you read Mr. Haramein’s responses to Bob’s critique, you’ll see a lot of references to Einstein and how Einstein was not (supposedly) a “mainstream” physicist, coupled with philosophical statements about how closed-minded and corrupt the institutions of mainstream learning are. Indeed, from what I’ve observed in my research for this article, this is the primary line of defense when Mr. Haramein is attacked: claim that Einstein (or someone else who is well-respected but has an unorthodox background) had radical ideas too, and suggest that because he was vindicated, Mr. Haramein’s unorthodox ideas are worthy of the same level of credulity and acceptance that we today give the theories of Einstein and Copernicus.
I’ve encountered this line of argumentation many, many times before. In fact, it’s a trope used almost universally by believers in fringe phenomena such as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and conspiracy theories. I wrote an article about this about 18 months ago on my other blog, specifically in the context of conspiracy theorists, and explaining why their views on academics and experts are wrong. The same principle goes here. People who accept fringe beliefs exhibit a curious form of bipolar behavior when it comes to experts. On the one hand, they really wish that some credentialed experts would agree with them so it would lend credence to their pet theories. Simultaneously, because they can’t get any credentialed experts to agree with them, they’re forced to explain why this is by claiming that credentialed experts are worthless and that the institutions they come from are closed to any new ideas or new knowledge.
The problem with this argument, however, is that it presumes the legitimacy of credentialed experts and institutional knowledge—academia and peer-review, if you will—is essentially arbitrary and has little to do with the substantive content of their fields. Followers of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiracy theories think that academia and institutional knowledge is a sort of old boy’s club, where a cap and gown and a secret handshake get you “in the club,” and only knowledge that originates from within “the club” is taken seriously. The reality is very different.
You do not have to be a credentialed expert with a Ph.D. in physics to come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. You could be a plumber and still come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. However, whether you are a Ph.D. physicist or a plumber, the validity of your idea must be still be provable using the scientific method.
You do not have to possess a Ph.D. in archeology to come up with a bold new theory that explains the workings of ancient civilizations. You could work at Subway and still come up with a revolutionary theory that redefines ancient history as we know it. However, whether you are a Ph.D. archaeologist or a Subway sandwich maker, the validity of your idea must still be provable with evidence and the methods of archaeological research and historical analysis.
This is what Mr. Haramein doesn’t seem to understand. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is not because he is not a credentialed expert doing research at a traditional institution. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is because they’re not verifiable or supportable according to the methods of physics, astronomy and ancient history. It’s the methods that matter. Scientific inquiry and historical analysis have been built up over centuries, even millennia. Democritus was doing science in Thrace in the 4th century B.C., and Thucydides was researching history at about the same time. Guess what? The methods that Democritus used all those centuries ago are still sound by today’s scientific standards (though of course technology is much different), and the methods that Thucydides used to describe the Peloponnesian War are still recognized as hallmarks of historical scholarship today. This is not to say that science or history haven’t advanced since the time of the ancient Greeks; clearly they have. But our process of asking questions and seeking answers, of judging hypothesis based on verifiable facts, and of testing the evidence for its reliability are remarkably similar to the processes that experts have been using for centuries to get at the truth of various problems.
Want to know something else? The “scientific heretics” that fringe believers like to trot out on cue—Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.—could prove their unorthodox theories by using those same processes. Galileo was persecuted by religious authorities, but he could still prove that Jupiter had moons; Copernicus’s books were banned by political authorities, but his mathematics still proved that a heliocentric solar system was the truth. Einstein wasn’t even much of a heretic at all. After all, he won a Nobel Prize. They don’t give Nobel Prizes to people who don’t use the scientific method or whose discoveries can’t be verified by it.
Through his rhetoric about institutional knowledge and credentialism, Mr. Haramein and his supporters seem to want you to jump to the conclusion that he’s a bold innovator and a brave defender of scientific truth in the face of unreasonable conformity. But the real bold innovators and brave defenders of scientific truth, like Galileo and Copernicus, could prove their theories using scientific methods and reasoning, and thats why their ideas are accepted today as truth. By contrast, Mr. Haramein seems to want to skip the part where his theories are actually proven using the methods and reasoning that experts have been using for centuries to determine what’s true and what’s not. Unfortunately, science and history don’t work that way.
Conclusion
During his brief appearance in Thrive, Nassim Haramein makes a number of statements and invites a number of inferences. He makes statements about the “Flower of Life” design which are incorrect. He makes statements about ancient gods and the history of ancient peoples which are incorrect. He invites the conclusion that aliens came to Earth long ago to help civilizations build various things, a conclusion which is unsupportable.
Outside the movie Thrive, Mr. Haramein is known for making similar wild claims, which are similarly incorrect. His “Schwarzschild Proton” theory is absolutely unsupported given physical science as we know it today. Real scientists consistently deride his methodology as flawed and his arguments as totally unpersuasive. His response to these criticisms, which is to dismiss the value of expert opinion or institutional knowledge, is similarly unpersuasive.
The rational viewer of Thrive, when confronted with these facts, should not only be extremely skeptical of the assertions Mr. Haramein makes in the film, but should also wonder why the makers of the film did not conduct better research, and consult more reliable sources, about the matters Mr. Haramein discusses.
“False Flag” Attacks–Debunked!
This blog will deal with the claims made in a very small portion of the movie Thrive—small, but important. One of the key claims Foster Gamble makes in the film is the claim that there is a “Global Domination Agenda” where a small elite is plotting to take over the world. As I have already demonstrated, that claim is completely false. One of the pieces of “evidence” that Mr. Gamble employs to reach this finish line is the idea that this “Global Domination Elite” (“GDE” for short) uses what he calls “false flag attacks” as pretexts to start wars and/or institute policies that supposedly advance this imaginary conspiracy. In doing so, Mr. Gamble makes some pretty serious distortions of a few particular events in U.S. history. As American history is my professional field, I feel particularly obligated to set the record straight as to the misleading information and false conclusions invited by Mr. Gamble in Thrive.
What Does Thrive Say About “False Flag” Attacks?
At 1:30:00 (+/- a few seconds) in Thrive, Mr. Gamble asserts that “it is a documented fact that we entered the Vietnam War under false pretenses.” He is talking about the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, an attack by North Vietnamese forces on U.S. warships which caused President Lyndon Johnson to ask Congress for a resolution broadly authorizing expanded use of military force in Vietnam. A few moments later, Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense under Johnson, is shown on the screen acknowledging that the attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin did not actually take place.
At 1:30:44, after Mr. Gamble mentions that George W. Bush used the idea of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in Iraq to build support for the 2003 invasion, he states, “Tactics such as this are sometimes referred to as ‘false flag’ operations.”
At 1:30:56, Gamble makes the following assertion:
“A growing number of people believe that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ operation by the global elite as a means of taking over Middle Eastern oil and dismantling U.S. constitutional protections.”
As he says this, on the screen the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is shown. The title on the screen reads, “Building 7, World Trade Center—September 11, 2001—(not hit by any plane).”
In about one minute of screen time, Mr. Gamble has committed a number of serious historical, logical and factual errors. This article will demonstrate three principal factual conclusions: (1) that Mr. Gamble is absolutely wrong, as a matter of historical fact, to claim that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag” operation; (2) that belief in “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theories is not growing, but in fact shrinking; and (3) the conclusion that Mr. Gamble invites, but does not expressly state, regarding September 11—specifically regarding WTC7, that it was part of a “false flag” operation—is incorrect. Additionally, this article will demonstrate why the whole idea of “false flag” operations, as conceived of by conspiracy theorists, is extremely unrealistic and in fact pretty silly.
What Is a “False Flag” Attack?
If you hear the term “false flag” in ordinary conversation, chances are pretty good you’re talking to a conspiracy theorist. As conspiracy theorists often do, they have taken a fairly obscure term—this one from the world of military and intelligence strategy—and colored its meaning into something not quite the same as its original meaning. Just for the sake of defining the term, I’ll quote the Wikipedia definition:
“False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.”
Historically, false flag operations have been confined to fairly small-scale military maneuvers, especially in naval warfare. Did you see the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which involves British Navy ships in the Napoleonic era? There is a scene in that film where a British warship disguises itself as a whaling vessel from Brazil so as to lure an enemy French ship into close quarters, whereupon the British standard is suddenly raised and the attack begins. This is a type of false flag operation in its proper context.
When conspiracy theorists talk about “false flags,” what they mean is a tragic event, usually a very large-scale attack or other act of war or aggression, which is entirely staged by a government or elite group as a means to blame a totally innocent party and thus create a cause to retaliate against that innocent party. It’s the same thing in spirit, but not in scope. False flag operations in real life tend to be small and limited in scale. To conspiracy theorists, however, there is no practical limit to the events that can be staged successfully. Indeed the term “false flag” itself is often used as shorthand to allege a conspiracy behind something.
Why Is The Gulf of Tonkin Incident Not a “False Flag”?
Mr. Gamble states boldly that “it is a documented fact that we entered the war under false pretenses.” It’s very clear that he’s alleging that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag attack. But it wasn’t. The reality is complicated, and considerably different than Mr. Gamble’s conspiracist shorthand.
First, and most importantly, he does not tell the audience that what is referred to as the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” was actually two incidents. There were two alleged attacks on U.S. warships by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two separate occasions in early August 1964. One such attack clearly and definitely occurred. In fact it has been admitted by Vietnamese officials. The second attack did not occur. This is the attack that Robert McNamara is speaking of in his brief clip shown in Thrive, which is taken out of context.
Because we know for a fact that one attack definitely occurred, this automatically disqualifies the Gulf of Tonkin incident as being a “false flag.” However, the second attack—the one that did not happen—doesn’t satisfy the definition either. It didn’t happen, but it wasn’t staged. Gamble clearly wants you to believe that elements of the imaginary “Global Domination Agenda” staged the incident in order to give the U.S. a pretext to go into Vietnam. That’s not what happened. Whatever did happen in the Gulf of Tonkin that night was misperceived by U.S. military personnel as an attack. They made a mistake; but that’s different than staging an attack.
What Happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964?
The United States had been supporting the government of South Vietnam since 1954, when a complicated cease-fire ended France’s war there (much of Southeast Asia had long been a colony of the French). This accord separated Vietnam into two countries, North Vietnam which was Communist, and South Vietnam which was pro-Western. American military and intelligence forces, euphemistically called “advisers,” were in the country beginning in the late 1950s, helping the South Vietnamese resist the civil war going on within its borders to unify all of Vietnam under Communist rule. Inch by inch the United States was being pulled in to a more active role, but by August 1964 there were no U.S. combat troops directly engaged in warfare with the Vietnamese.
On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, cruising in the Gulf of Tonkin on a mission to collect intelligence about North Vietnamese military activity, fell under attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats. The U.S. returned fire and sank one of the boats. Part of the reason this small battle occurred was because North Vietnam claimed a zone of up to twelve miles from its coasts were its territorial waters, and this claim was not recognized by the United States. Historically, there is no question that the August 2 attack did occur. The only question was who in North Vietnam’s military had ordered it and whether they had authority of the government to do so.
In 1998, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara—the exact person who a brief clip of appears in Thrive—and other U.S. officials, in an effort to repair relations with Vietnam (which ultimately was unified under Communist rule in 1975), went to Vietnam to talk about the war with officials who had been in command of the North Vietnamese government at that time. These fascinating discussions were recorded and became the basis of a book by Robert S. McNamara, James G. Blight, and Robert K. Bringham called Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy (New York: Public Affairs, 1999). On page 203 of this book, McNamara and his opposite numbers from Vietnam discuss the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Here was the record of the exchange about the first attack:
“Robert McNamara: The first question I have is: was there an attack on the Maddox on August 2, 1964? The answer to that is almost surely ‘yes.’ I say this because I have a fragment of a North Vietnamese shell that I took off the deck of the Maddox, so I think there had to be an attack. But I’d like this on the record. I see my Vietnamese colleagues nodding agreement. Okay, we’ll accept that.”
“Gen. Nguyen Dinh Uoc: Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap said that one of the responsibilities of the Vietnamese navy in Thanh Hoa was to guard against any vessels violating the national waters of Vietnam. And if there were violations, the navy had the right to attack in order to protect those waters. That was the general policy adopted by the central authority to defend the country’s sea coast, at the time. It was not a decision made centrally. That is the answer.”
“Robert McNamara: Thank you for a very clear answer. It points to something that we certainly did not understand or anticipate at the time…There was a far greater decentralization of authority and command with respect to the North Vietnamese military than we understood at the time…”
So you see here that even the North Vietnamese admit that the August 2 attack did in fact take place. This is proof positive that Foster Gamble (A) is wrong that the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag,” because it is clear that an attack did take place; and (B) that he took the McNamara quote out of context. Before I explain where the McNamara quote comes from, let’s look at the second part of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Two days after the August 2 incident, the USS Maddox and another ship, the USS Turner Joy, claimed that they were under attack again. Technicians aboard these ships saw radar blips and there were also visual sightings of what people interpreted as patrol boats headed toward the U.S. ships. In fact, they misinterpreted what they saw. I will quote from another book, Edwin E. Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), where it states on page 203-04:
“Several participants in the incident who contend that there really was a PT boat attack on the night of August 4 have summarized for the author the reasons for their belief. John Barry firmly believes that his ship actually was attacked by torpedo boats…Ensign Douglas Smith was completely convinced, on the basis of what he could see on his radar screen, that the Turner Joy was under PT boat attack. Despite contrary evidence of which he has become aware since, he is still inclined to believe in the reality of the attack…The evidence of the radar screen returns was convincing then, as it is now…
When the documentary evidence is added, the weight of the evidence is overwhelming: no attack occurred. There exist rational explanations of how all the evidence of an attack could exist without there having been an attack.”
The captain of the Maddox cabled Washington that his ship was under attack. Not long after he began to send cables hedging on this conclusion and suggesting that perhaps the second attack had not, in fact, occurred. McNamara did not tell President Lyndon Johnson that the Maddox commander was changing his mind. When Johnson made the decision to seek Congressional authority to strike back, on the basis that U.S. forces had been attacked, he did not know that the August 4 attack was in serious question.
In 2003, Robert McNamara gave a lengthy interview to filmmaker Errol Morris. This interview became the basis of a documentary film called Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara. It is from this film that the brief clip of McNamara that appears in Thrive is taken. (I hope Mr. Gamble got the appropriate clearances to use it). In the specific clip that is used in Thrive, McNamara, who died in July 2009, is clearly talking about the August 4 attack. To my knowledge, at no time did he ever hold the opinion that the August 2 attack did not take place.
It is important to view the questions about the August 4 attack in their proper context. The brief and misleading presentation of the Gulf of Tonkin issue in Thrive clearly invites the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was some sort of deliberate fabrication. Indeed, the characterization of the event as a “false flag” attack requires that interpretation. But, as we’ve seen here, the August 2 attack did occur, and the August 4 attack, which did not occur, was a result of mistake, not fabrication. There is not a single shred of evidence anywhere that the apparent August 4 attack on the USS Maddox was a deliberate and knowing fabrication. Thus, it is impossible that it could have been a “false flag.”
Did the Gulf of Tonkin Incident Really “Get us into Vietnam?”
Historically speaking, the answer to this question is clearly no. By August 1964 the United States was already deeply involved in Vietnam. It is therefore a mischaracterization of history to assert that the Gulf of Tonkin incident caused the United States to enter the Vietnam war. It simply didn’t happen that way.
While obviously the point of this section of Thrive is not to engage in any sort of deep historical analysis, again the conclusion that Mr. Gamble invites with his words, and his selective presentation of the issues, is telling. Look at his exact words again: “It is a documented fact that we entered the Vietnam War under false pretenses.” It is not a documented fact, because it simply isn’t true. He’s playing games with the idea of when and under what circumstances the U.S. “entered the Vietnam War.”
I will again quote the Moise book, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. In the preface, Moise states:
“The incorrect report of August 4 did not really “cause” the outbreak of large-scale war in Vietnam. By August 1964, Washington and Hanoi were already on a collision course. The level of combat in South Vietnam, and the level of outside support on both sides, were increasing; meanwhile the United States was sponsoring a program of covert operations against North Vietnam…If reports from the Gulf of Tonkin had not caused President Johnson to order airstrikes against North Vietnam in August 1964, something else would have done so within a few months.
“[T]he Tonkin Gulf incidents—the real one of August 2 for which the United States did not retaliate, and the imaginary one of August 4 that provoked the airstrikes and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution—deserve careful attention.”
This analysis is absolutely supported by all historical data regarding the United States’s entry into the Vietnam War. If you go to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., you’ll see two dates on the wall—1959 and 1975, the prior being the first year in which a U.S. serviceman died in Vietnam, and the latter being the last year in which that occurred. Those are, incidentally, also the dates by which the U.S. government, for purposes of veterans benefits and classification, defines the “Vietnam conflict.” It is true that a sustained long-term air campaign (“Rolling Thunder”) and large-scale infusion of American ground forces into Vietnam did not occur until 1965, after LBJ asked for, and received from Congress, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. But it is totally false to state or imply that the war began in the Gulf of Tonkin. If it did, what war did the Americans who died between 1959 and 1965, and whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam War Memorial, die in?
By his misleading use of the term “false flag,” Foster Gamble seems to want you to conclude that the Gulf of Tonkin incident alone took the United States and North Vietnam from peaceful coexistence to open armed conflict, and that, if the Gulf of Tonkin incident hadn’t happened, or if the truth about the August 4 attack had been known, the Vietnam War would not have occurred. This conclusion is ludicrous and is totally at odds with every bit of historical knowledge we have about the war. It simply isn’t true.
Okay, So the Gulf of Tonkin Wasn’t a False Flag. Does That Mean the Vietnam War was Perfectly OK?
No. That is not the argument at all. The issue is whether the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag.” It was not. The legitimacy or morality of American involvement in Vietnam is a totally different question.
Because I’m sure I’ll be asked about it, I’ll state that, personally and as a historian, I do not believe the Vietnam War should ever have been fought. I have not been able to find in the historical record anything that I regard as a convincing argument having been made by proponents of the war, such as John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson or Robert McNamara, as to why U.S. national interests at stake in Vietnam justified the terrible price of that conflict. I believe the U.S. government sorely misjudged both the stakes and the likely consequences of the war, and compounded the damage by making one disastrous decision after another. That’s what I think about Vietnam. But was it started by a “Global Domination Elite” with a “false flag” in the Gulf of Tonkin? Absolutely not.
Is the Number of People who Believe 9/11 Was a “False Flag” Growing?
Let’s move on to the subject of 9/11. Mr. Gamble is curiously circumspect about 9/11, as we’ll see in the next section, but let’s look briefly at what he specifically says: “A growing number of people believe that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ operation by the global elite as a means of taking over Middle Eastern oil and dismantling U.S. constitutional protections.”
This statement is utterly false. Although most 9/11 conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it, fewer people believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” now than did four, five, or six years ago. An interesting article from Slate.com charts the rise and fall of 9/11 conspiracy beliefs:
“[I]n the immediate aftermath of 9/11, only a tiny segment of the American population, 8 percent according to one poll in early 2002, was inclined to believe that their government was lying to them about what happened that day….
Although most Americans still believed that the Bush administration was “mostly telling the truth,” by early 2004 16 percent of the population believed it was “mostly lying” about how much it knew prior to the attacks—double the number from the same CBS poll two years prior…By mid-2006, one in three respondents would tell pollsters that they believed the government either orchestrated the attacks or allowed them to happen in order to go to war in the Middle East…
By 2009, with the first-ever African-American president having taken office, the number of Americans who said that Bush let 9/11 happen in order to go to war in the Middle East was at 14 percent. (Because the wording of questions about responsibility for 9/11 has changed over the years, getting a consistent measure of the public’s view is difficult)…. In another poll in 2010, only 12 percent of Americans said they did not believe Osama Bin Laden had carried out the 9/11 attacks.”
Did you follow that? Belief in conspiracy theories started out at 8% in 2002, doubled to 16% in 2004, exploded to 33% in 2006, then slumped to 14% and was still falling as of 2010. If you follow the links in the above quote you can see the raw poll data upon which this summary is based. Any way you slice it, you’ll see that 9/11 conspiracy theories are becoming less popular, not more.
It is very clear: Foster Gamble is simply wrong when he says “a growing number of people” believe that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation. In fact, the reverse is true: a shrinking number of people believe that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation.
Was September 11 a “False Flag” Operation?
No.
Mr. Gamble is curiously circumspect about the subject of 9/11. He doesn’t specifically state in Thrive that “9/11 was an inside job.” All he says specifically is that “a growing number of people” believe that it is, a statement which, as you’ll see above, is incorrect. But let’s not kid ourselves. Thrive is aimed at conspiracy theorists. Among such people, the delusional belief that 9/11 was an “inside job” is an axiom. If Mr. Gamble does not believe that it was, I challenge him to come out and say unequivocally, without reservation, that he believes that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorists without the foreknowledge or assistance of the U.S. (or Israeli) government.
Clearly Mr. Gamble invites you to make the conclusion that 9/11 was an “inside job.” While he makes his incorrect statement about the numbers of people who believe it is, on the screen we see World Trade Center 7 crumbling. 9/11 conspiracy theorists continually point to WTC7, a skyscraper that collapsed several hours after the main WTC towers fell, as “evidence” that it was a conspiracy. I’ll give Thrive a very rare point for factual accuracy when I note that the caption flashed on the screen at this part of the movie, stating that WTC7 was not hit by a plane, is correct. It was not hit by a plane. However, that doesn’t mean that September 11 was a “false flag.”
At my other blog, I have written extensively about September 11 conspiracy theories and why they’re false. You can peruse examples here, here and here. I won’t rehash all the material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories in this article. If you need convincing that 9/11 was not an inside job, I suggest you consult this website, or this one, which has a page devoted specifically to explaining why WTC7 does not indicate conspiracy, or you can go to an article I created in 2010 setting out very carefully what we know about 9/11 and why we know it was not an “inside job.” In a nutshell, WTC7 collapsed because it was severely damaged structurally, and set on fire, by debris that struck it when WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed earlier in the day. Uncontrolled fires raged for hours in the building and authorities knew well ahead of time that it was going to collapse. Here is a recent news article incorporating footage that graphically shows how bad the damage was in WTC7. It is very clear that September 11 was not an “inside job.”
So, Mr. Gamble is 0 for 3. He is wrong when he says the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag.” He is wrong when he says that a growing number of people believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. He is also wrong when he invites the audience of Thrive to draw the conclusion that 9/11 was a “false flag.”
“False Flags” in General: They’re a Lot Rarer Than You Think.
For the most part, I’m annoyed when conspiracy theorists like Mr. Gamble assume that certain events must be “false flag” attacks. They always—always–jump to this conclusion without investigating the evidence behind a particular event. They also ignore the fact that, in real life, “false flag” attacks are exceptionally rare. I can think of only one that makes any sort of fit with the concept as Mr. Gamble describes it, and ironically he doesn’t even mention it in Thrive. On August 31, 1939, the day before the beginning of World War II, Nazi commandos attacked a German radio station on the frontier between Germany and Poland, and planted false evidence to make it look like Poles had done it. This is known as the “Gleiwitz Incident.” However, even at that, it wasn’t very consequential. By that time Hitler had been railing at Poland for months, with his usual demand being the return of a piece of Polish territory, known as the Danzig Corridor, to Germany. Had the Gleiwitz Incident not occurred at all, the war would have begun the next day just as scheduled. Furthermore, the Gleiwitz Incident failed to fool very many people in the first place. Virtually no one outside of Germany believed it, and as for belief within Germany, Hitler, being an absolute dictator, did not require public support to launch his war against Poland in the first place. Gleiwitz simply didn’t matter very much—far from being the global game-changer of the kind Mr. Gamble imagines happened in 1964 in Vietnam, or suggests happened in 2001.
Only one other alleged “false flag” even bears mentioning. Whenever you hear the words “false flag,” conspiracy theorists trot out another tired trope—that being “Operation Northwoods.” This was a memo drawn up within the U.S. intelligence community in 1962 suggesting that acts of terror be committed against U.S. interests abroad and blamed on Fidel Castro, so as to galvanize public opinion for an invasion of Cuba. The document was declassified in 1998. What conspiracy theorists forget is that this document, and the scenario it suggests, was so outlandish and outrageous that President John F. Kennedy, to whom it was presented, was aghast at the suggestion and rejected it out of hand. Not only was “Operation Northwoods” never attempted, Kennedy fired the guy who proposed it. Sadly for conspiracy theorists, this document does not help make their case that “false flag” operations are common.
When I hear conspiracy theorists complain that “false flag” attacks are used to justify American action against terrorists abroad, I sometimes present them with a list of terrorist attacks that have occurred in the past 30 or so years and then ask them to identify which ones they are willing to believe as really having occurred—i.e., as not “false flags.” For example, conspiracy theorists love to talk about 9/11 and the 2005 “7/7” London Underground massacre as being “false flags.”
However, what about lesser-known acts of terrorism? What about the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in the summer of 1985, in which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered and his body thrown on an airport runway? Or the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro, also in 1985, where an elderly American passenger in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered and thrown overboard? Or, at the very end of the year, the machine-gun massacres at airport ticket counters in the Vienna and Rome airports? These are three terrorist incidents that occurred in 1985 alone. Which of these three are “false flag” attacks? All of them? One of them? Two? If any of them were “fals flags,” where is the evidence that they were faked?
When I ask questions like this, conspiracy theorists usually confess that they’ve never heard of these incidents so they can’t opine whether they are “false flags” or not. Some will add a naked and uninformed conjecture that they probably are, because most conspiracy theorists are reluctant to concede that terrorism really exists.
The reality is this: “false flag” attacks are extremely rare, they are of limited size and scale, they are difficult and dangerous to pull off, and even the ones that do occur (like the Gleiwitz attack) are rarely convincing or consequential. The scale and scope of “false flag” activity imagined by Mr. Gamble and other conspiracy theorists is simply the stuff of fantasy.
Thrive is wrong about “false flag” attacks. Period.
Ancient Astronauts–Debunked!
One of the key claims in the Thrive movie, and in fact a major assumption on which the movie is based, is the idea of “ancient astronauts”—the supposition that extraterrestrial beings came to Earth in the early history of the human race and imparted knowledge to humans. As with most other claims and basic assumptions in Thrive, the idea of ancient astronauts is unsupported by facts and contrary to logic and critical reasoning. It is purely a faith-based proposition, and this article will explain why.
What Are “Ancient Astronauts” And What Does Thrive Claim About Them?
The idea of ancient astronauts is very popular in New Age circles. The basic idea is that supposedly aliens visited Earth thousands of years ago and gave humans knowledge that they wouldn’t otherwise have had. Thrive argues that part of this knowledge was the “torus” shape that Foster Gamble asserts is some sort of pattern for unlimited, free energy. This pattern is supposedly observable in the “Flower of Life” and virtually anything else in ancient or early modern art or architecture that involves 64 circles or really 64 of anything.
Much of the first quarter of Thrive either deals with ancient astronauts explicitly or implicitly. At 20:25 of the film, for instance, there is the explicit claim that alien intelligences were visiting Earth in UFOs in ancient times. Prior to that, however, there are various claims made, such as those by Nassim Haramein, of things that are supposedly of extraterrestrial origin, “proving” the ancient astronaut theory correct. At 20:10 in the film, Mr. Haramein states that the Egyptians, Incas and Mayans all talk about “sun gods” who come to Earth and teach them engineering, writing and all of their science. Evidently we (the human race) are supposed to get back to our extraterrestrial roots and discover the “gift” of free unlimited energy that these aliens supposedly gave us thousands of years ago.
What Is The Evidence That Thrive Relies On To Claim Ancient Astronauts Are Real?
The answer to this question is simple: none whatsoever. All of the claims made in Thrive about ancient astronauts are based on the same basic assumption: that ancient peoples couldn’t possibly have built this or that structure, or known about this concept or that concept, and therefore this “proves” that they must have been given these ideas by a superior intelligence.
That’s it. That’s all the Thrive movie has to support its claims about ancient astronauts. No evidence at all. Just an assumption followed by a supposition, neither of which are logically or factually supportable.
Example: at 18:45 of the film, Foster Gamble, finishing up his talk about the 64-circled “Flower of Life” design, says, “Is it a coincidence that this design appears on two different continents?” We have already seen on this blog that the Thrive movie’s claims about the “Flower of Life” being “burned into the structure of the rock” are false, and that the makers have acknowledged that they are false. Later, trying to link the number 64 with recent discoveries about human DNA, Gamble says of ancient peoples (at 20:02), “But how on earth did they know about it?”
This assumption is nothing less than a frontal assault on human intelligence. Mr. Gamble and Mr. Haramein are suggesting that ancient peoples were so stupid, simple-minded and helpless that they couldn’t have come up with anything worthwhile unless that knowledge was given to them by aliens.
There is also another incorrect assumption lying behind this one: that knowledge of science and technology in the modern world is always a perfectly linear expansion, that nothing that has ever been known or discovered in human history has ever been lost or forgotten, and that modern understandings of science and engineering are the sina qua non of intelligence. That is to say, if we can’t explain how the Egyptians built a pyramid in terms roughly analogous to understanding of the processes of building the Empire State Building, this precludes the possibility that the pyramids could have been built by humans.
Although it appeals to an extraterrestrial designer rather than a divine one, ancient astronaut theories are similar in reasoning (or lack thereof) to young-earth creationism and “Intelligent Design.” Right away this should tell you that ancient astronauts are not a rational explanation for the concepts or creations of ancient peoples.
Where Do Modern “Ancient Astronaut” Theories Come From?
Ancient astronauts, as the idea is commonly understood in the circles of New Age believers that are evidently Thrive’s target audience, burst into popular culture in 1968 with a pseudoscientific book called Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Däniken, which is still in print 44 years later. This virtually fact-free book argues that ancient structures such as Stonehenge and the Nazca Lines are too advanced to have been built by ancient peoples, and thus must have been constructed by aliens. Probably the best debunking of von Däniken is this article written by John T. Omohundro way back in 1976 which takes apart both von Däniken’s supposed “evidence” and his faulty reasoning. A more concise criticism can be found on the Skeptic Dictionary page on von Däniken, which states:
“[M]ost of von Däniken’s evidence is in the form of specious and fallacious arguments. His data consists mainly of archaeological sites and ancient myths. He begins with the ancient astronaut assumption and then forces all data to fit the idea. For example, in Nazca, Peru, he explains giant animal drawings in the desert as an ancient alien airport. The likelihood that these drawings related to the natives’ religion or science is not considered. He also frequently reverts to false dilemma reasoning of the following type: ‘Either this data is to be explained by assuming these primitive idiots did this themselves or we must accept the more plausible notion that they got help from extremely advanced peoples who must have come from other planets where such technologies as anti-gravity devices had been invented.’”
These ideas weren’t new even in 1968. This article mentions some of the progenitors of the ancient astronaut theory, and also debunks some other examples from Chariots of the Gods?. But in New Age circles—people who want to believe spiritual “alternative explanations” for things rather than accept factual and rational explanations—von Däniken has been a hero for nearly half a century. Unfortunately, woo beliefs tend to be much more popular than dry facts of history and archaeology.
But Isn’t It True We Don’t Know How The Pyramids (Or Other Ancient Structures) Were Built?
Yes, in some cases it is true. But why does this lead to a binary choice—that if we can’t explain it, we must conclude that it was done by aliens? There is, in fact, another and much more likely possibility: that the ancient peoples did it themselves using means and procedures whose exact natures are no longer extant in the historical record.
Also, do not confuse “we don’t know how they were built” with “the building of these structures is impossible given what we know about physics and engineering.” Believers in ancient astronaut theories constantly confuse these two conclusions. We do not know how the pyramids were built, but the construction of them by human hands is certainly not impossible. Skeptic Dictionary puts it this way:
“We still wonder how the ancient Egyptians raised giant obelisks in the desert and how stone age men and women moved huge cut stones and placed them in position in dolmens and passage graves. We are amazed by the giant carved heads on Easter Island and wonder why they were done, who did them, and why they abandoned the place. We may someday have the answers to our questions, but they are most likely to come from scientific investigation not pseudoscientific speculation. For example, observing contemporary stone age peoples in Papua New Guinea, where huge stones are still found on top of tombs, has taught us how the ancients may have accomplished the same thing with little more than ropes of organic material, wooden levers and shovels, a little ingenuity and a good deal of human strength.”
What we lack is not an understanding of the scientific possibility of building these structures, but the historical records of the processes used to build them. For example, it is clearly not impossible for human beings to haul massive stones, such as those used to build the pyramids at Giza, many miles from a quarry to a construction site. We do it today with trucks and cranes, but many, many historical records exist of it being done in structures all over the world in the days before trucks and cranes. Therefore, we know it is possible. But with the pyramids, the historical record of how they were built has been lost. Did they use pulleys? Ramps? Did they haul the stones on donkeys? Did they use teams of slaves? We don’t know, but the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that any or all of these techniques were not or could not have been used.
See the difference? We don’t know how they were built is not the same as we believe that the building of these structures is impossible according to our understanding of science and engineering. Those are two very different concepts, but New Age believers conflate them constantly, and this conflation is the basis for ancient astronaut claims.
But What About Ancient Peoples’ Mythology About Sun Gods Who Taught Them Everything? Isn’t That Evidence of Alien Visitation?
No.
A key part of ancient astronaut bunk is to warp and distort ancient peoples’ mythology and religious beliefs to try to claim that they really were talking about aliens and UFOs. Von Däniken does this in Chariots of the Gods? and Nassim Haramein does exactly the same thing at 20:10 of Thrive. Mr. Haramein claims that Egyptians, Mayas and Incas all had “sun gods” that supposedly taught them science and engineering. This claim is false at least with respect to the Egyptians and Mayas.
The ancient Egyptian sun god was called Ra. I looked up Ra in my Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology, by Arthur Cotterell & Rachel Storm, and while I found a very detailed article on Ra’s role as the daily-reborn sun god of Egypt, there was not a single word referring to him teaching science and technology to the Egyptians. You can browse some online resources about Ra (such as this one) and you will also see that there is no mention of Ra’s relationship to science and technology. I read quite a lot about Egyptian mythology in my early years, and I don’t recall ever hearing this. If anyone more versed in Egyptian mythology than I am can correct me if this is a misconception, I invite them to do so—but please come armed with a direct quotation from a reliable source before commenting.
Mayan mythology and religion is extraordinarily complex. In researching this article, as near as I can tell the Mayan sun god was called Kinich Ahau, and he was primarily associated with music and poetry—not science and engineering. Clearly there is no mention of this god, at least in the materials I could find, “teaching” ancient peoples how to build anything. Again, if anyone who knows Mayan mythology wishes to dispute this characterization, I’ll do an update to this blog with a correction—but again, come armed with direct quotations from reliable sources.
I have a friend who is very much into Mayan culture, and who just got back from an archaeological dig in Guatemala. (His blog is here). I asked him about the sun god stuff. His answer: it’s garbage. Mr. Haramein appears to be mistaken.
He does have a point, however, when it comes to the Incan sun god. That god was called Inti and was the most important god in the Incan pantheon. This site refers to legends that Inti “taught civilization” to Manco Cápac, the mythological founder of the Incan civilization. Presumably the teaching of “civilization” involves science and engineering.
But before you conclude that this is “evidence” that the Incas learned everything they knew from little green men from the Pleiades, let’s step back a moment. Mr. Haramein made the claim that all three civilizations had sun gods who taught them about science and technology. The facts show that only one of them had a belief similar to that. Mr. Haramein was also proven incorrect about the “Flower of Life” at the Temple of Abydos. Clearly, when it comes to making assertions about ancient history, he doesn’t seem to be correct very much of the time.
Even beyond the issue of Mr. Haramein’s credibility, however, think of something more basic: if these ancient peoples were visited by extraterrestrials, why would formulations of myths and religious stories be their primary means of recording this extraordinary event? These ancient peoples did write down their history. Take the Mayans, for instance. In addition to recording their mythology, they recorded the genealogies of their kings and historical events that occurred in their countries. You can see a translation of a Mayan codex, called Popul Vuh, which does exactly that, here. Why would these peoples have not recorded what actually happened?
That dovetails with my next point.
If Ancient Astronauts Helped Ancient Peoples Build Things in the Distant Past, How Come They Haven’t Helped Us Build Anything in Recorded History?
This is a question I’ve never heard a believer in ancient astronauts even attempt to answer. If aliens helped Egyptians build the pyramids thousands of years ago, how come they didn’t help us build, say, the Hoover Dam in the 1920s? Why do all these supposed alien interventions lie in periods of the past for which historical records are sketchy or nonexistent?
Let’s take another example of an awesome and mysterious structure, every bit as amazing as the pyramids: the cathedral of Hagia Sofia (St. Sofia, the Church of the Holy Wisdom) in Constantinople, now called Istanbul.
This, one of the largest and grandest cathedrals in the world, survived many earthquakes over the centuries that turned most other structures to rubble. For many years modern scientists and engineers had no idea how or why the builders of St. Sofia were able to “earthquake-proof” the building. Then, in 2002, the answer was discovered: the Byzantines who built St. Sofia in the 530’s A.D. invented earthquake-proof cement 1300 years before anyone else had thought of it.
Before 2002, then, St. Sofia was in precisely the same category as the Egyptian pyramids or the Nazca lines: “We have no idea how they did it!” Yet I am unaware of a single instance in which New Agers have alleged that aliens helped build St. Sofia.
Why not? The answer is very simple. St. Sofia was built in recorded history. There are lots of written records relating to its construction in 532 A.D. We even know the names of the architects: Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles. In short, we know that aliens weren’t involved in building St. Sofia because none of the historical records relating to the construction of the cathedral mention them.
This fact is proof positive of how and why the “We have no idea how they did it, so it must be aliens” reasoning is inherently faulty. We know for a fact that humans built St. Sofia without help from Antares or Alpha Centauri. There was something about how they built it that we did not know, at least until 2002, and that something was a marvel comparable only to modern techniques of modern earthquake-proof construction. Yet no one could take seriously the claim that because this marvel existed, it somehow “proved” that aliens must have been involved in its construction.
This means that the only candidates for alien construction projects are those for which we don’t already have detailed records of their construction. If, for example, a stone tablet was discovered in Egypt tomorrow with a complete record of how the Great Pyramid was constructed, and archaeologists verified the tablet as genuine, the Great Pyramid would suddenly be off the New Agers’ list of “proof” items for alien astronauts. This shows that alien astronaut claims can only thrive (pardon the expression) where there is no direct evidence to refute them. This is a classic telltale sign of faulty reasoning.
Aren’t You Being Unfair And Closed-Minded By Refusing To Accept The Possibility That Aliens May Have Interacted With Humans In The Past? I Mean, You Should Be Open To All Possibilities, Right?
Many defenders of Thrive who have come to this blog to comment have taken me to task for denouncing this or that possibility involving woo subjects like UFOs or crop circles, or conspiracy theories like the “Global Domination Agenda,” as if I am somehow being unfair and closing the door on potential understanding by insisting on verifiable facts and logical reasoning. This criticism totally misses the point and again reinforces the faith-based belief system of Thrive’s target audience.
Personally, I would be delighted if historical or archaeological evidence of extraterrestrial visitation came to light. It would undoubtedly be the greatest discovery in the history of the human race. I personally do think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. However, this supposition—and it is no more than a supposition—does not justify a belief that these extraterrestrial beings are visiting Earth in UFOs, because there is no credible evidence that this is in fact happening. Not only is there no credible evidence of extraterrestrial visitation in modern times, but the supposed “evidence” for extraterrestrial visitation in the past is even thinner.
Why, if aliens visited humans in the past, should the evidence of these visitations be so oblique and attenuated? If it really happened, shouldn’t it be unmistakable? Again—why didn’t Cheops, the builder of the Great Pyramid, erect a stone tablet stating, “I just want to leave this stone behind to thank Zorky and Bloopblop from the planet Galinka for all their help in building my wonderful pyramid”? If it really happened, wouldn’t there be ample evidence of it? And in the absence of such convincing evidence, is it really that unreasonable to conclude that it did not happen?
I believe in the human race, the intelligence of the human species, and the boundless ingenuity of humanity. I seem to believe in these things more than Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein do. I believe that a bunch of very intelligent men and women, born in Egypt thousands of years ago, were clever enough to figure out a way to build the Great Pyramid, and if we modern peoples could see how they did it, we would be extremely surprised and intrigued by their ingenuity. Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein do not believe that Egyptians were smart enough to do this; they’d rather believe that these people were pathetic and helpless and could only have done what they did if aliens helped them.
I believe that artists, engineers and artisans across many different cultures, in many different countries, in many different eras, were smart enough to come up with the idea of a flower-like design with 64 interlocking circles independently of each other. This is not a “coincidence.” Is it really that hard? Is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that one ancient person in Egypt came up with a 64-circle flower design and thought, “Gee, that’s pretty—I think I’ll paint it on the wall,” and then someone else in China hundreds of years later had the same idea and also thought it was pretty? Why does this stretch any sort of credulity to believe this?
But Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein do not believe this. They believe people in Egypt and China—civilizations that gave us paper and fireworks, had running water in their houses, and explored much of the ancient world—were too stupid to do this without the help of aliens.
I believe that a couple of ordinary yahoos from rural England, with no advanced training in engineering or mathematics, working with boards, measuring tapes and other simple tools, can and regularly do create magnificent, geometrically perfect crop circles on a regular basis. In fact, I can prove that they do. But Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein do not believe this. They believe people are too stupid to figure out how to flatten some wheat stalks and throw some magnetized particles around to fool the gullible.
Most sadly—and here is the real tragedy of Thrive—Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein do not seem to believe in the capacity and ingenuity of the human species to improve its present condition. They don’t think we can end global warming, clean up the environment or improve the quality of life for many of the world’s people on our own, the same way we have solved many other problems, by using science and reason and calling upon the infinite creativity of the human spirit. No—the whole point of Thrive is that we, the human race, are too stupid and corrupt to do these things, and we must instead rely on magical technology supposedly given to us by extraterrestrials in order to solve these problems.
That’s their message. Humanity is doomed, and we always have been. Hell, according to Gamble and Haramein, as well as some commenters on this blog, we’re too stupid to figure out how to build crop circles correctly! But that doesn’t matter. Aliens will sail down from the skies to our rescue. As long as we don’t let those evil Rockefellers and the Federal Reserve take over.
Seen in this light, Thrive’s dogged insistence on the alien astronaut hypothesis is not only silly and illogical—it is downright insulting.
Who Is Adam Trombly? (UPDATED!)
This blog, originally published December 9, 2011, was updated March 16, 2012. Scroll to the end for the update.
This blog was written jointly by Professor Pious and by Muertos. Authorship of various sections is stated within.
Adam Trombly is one of the “experts” presented in the Thrive movie, and upon whom Thrive maker and narrator Foster Gamble relies heavily for his conclusions that “free energy” machines exist and are being suppressed by conspiratorial forces. Trombly makes his first appearance at 35:07 in the movie, and the film focuses on him for much of the next few minutes.
This blog will attempt to present answers to the following questions: Who is Adam Trombly? Is there any evidence that his machines actually work? Is there any evidence that, if his machines work, they have been suppressed? Bottom line: are his claims credible?
Who Is Adam Trombly?
[This section by Muertos]
Adam Trombly is a researcher who is closely associated with “free energy” devices. The device he is most closely associated with is something called a “Closed Path Homopolar Generator.” This is a free energy/perpetual motion device. As has been stated on this blog before, these devices do not work because they violate the basic laws of physics.
Some general links to familiarize you with Trombly:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8510.0
http://www.economicexpert.com/5a/History:of:perpetual:motion:machines.htm
[This section by Professor Pious]
Unfortunately most of the information in the links here on Adam Trombly trace back to Trombly’s own “projectearth” web site. It seems most information on Trombly available on the Internet has simply been copied from his own web site.
He claims to be:
“an internationally acknowledged expert in the fields of Physics, Atmospheric Dynamics, Geophysics, Rotating and Resonating Electromagnetic Systems, and Environmental Global Modeling”
In addition, the Thrive movie bills him as a “physicist.” Not a single academic degree is mentioned from any accredited institution.
[Muertos comment: I searched at some length for information on Adam Trombly’s academic credentials. I couldn’t find anything. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a Ph.D. in physics or any of the other fields he claims to be an expert in, but it seems unusual that, if he did, he and the Thrive movie would not mention that fact. Every other expert in the film who does have a Ph.D. in a relevant field is identified as being a Ph.D. Trombly is not.
This section regarding credentials is not an “ad hominem” attack, either, as some may eventually try to claim. The question of academic and scientific credentials is directly relevant to the credibility of Trombly to design and build these sorts of machines. Even if we cannot expect that revolutionary new energy inventions will always come from credentialed experts—I am not making that claim at all—if there’s something to these designs, at the very least credentialed experts would be who we would naturally look to in order to explain and verify these claims.]
Does Trombly’s machine actually work?
Trombly’s web site contains a review of his “Homopolar Generator” by a Bruce E. DePalma:
http://projectearth.com/closed-path-homopolar-machine
As one might expect, DePalma is also a well-known “free energy” researcher, whose research never produced a device that produced excess energy. Here’s a short biography of DePalma:
“De Palma studied electrical engineering at MIT, leaving without a degree around 1958. DePalma worked in weapons electronics at General Atronics Corporation in Philadelphia following his under-graduate years at MIT before returning the Boston area for a job at Polaroid in Cambridge MA. In the mid-1960s he also obtained a teaching assistant position in the laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton, the renowned inventor of stroboscopic photography.
Coincident with his return to Massachusetts, he became infatuated with psycho-active drugs and believed the mind altering effects he perceived opened an entirely new way to pursue the study of physics. Unfortunately, this experimentation led to problems with his academic and corporate relationships and by 1970, he left both to strike out on his own and begin the full-time pursuit of free energy machines that occupied the rest of his life. While he was thought to be quite brilliant by the many students he recruited to assist him, his addictions to hashish and LSD colored everything he wrote and conceived, and invariably left within a few years when it became clear that despite his most sincere efforts, nothing he ever postulated could be scientifically verified. Undaunted, he recruited more as needed, invariably assisted by his willingness to share his psychedelics with the newcomers.”
Source:
http://wikibin.org/articles/bruce-depalma.html
That leaves us without any credible verification of Trombly’s free energy homopolar generator, except Trombly’s claims that an Indian scientist named Paramahamsa Tewari had taken up the research.
http://projectearth.com/articles/25-common-sense
Thankfully Gary Posner has some fact-checking here:
http://www.gpposner.com/Hoagland_pt2.html
Excerpt:
“According to FTP, a variation of the “N Machine” [Homopolar Generator] was already in full operation. Thus, on September 21, 1990, I wrote to B. Premanand, founder of the Indian Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal:
~I would like to know if the Indian government has in operation a power generator that produces more energy than it consumes (i.e., a perpetual energy machine). This claim is being made repeatedly on the “For The People” radio program (heard on 7.520 MHz. internationally from 2400 to 0200 hours UTC).
The machine is supposedly a magnetized gyroscope, located on the west coast of India in a city that sounded like “Caroa,” which is supposedly south of an old Portuguese colony that sounded like “Doa.” If I heard correctly, a German company that sounded like “Gadori” may have actually built it.
Although Premanand’s letter of reply never made its way back to me, mine did reach him. I was quite surprised, and delighted, to discover that, as a result of my letter, he had devoted nine pages to this subject in the April 1995 issue of his group’s Indian Skeptic newsletter (in which a copy of my letter was reproduced). Premanand wrote about his efforts to track down Dr. Paramahamsa Tewari, who, according to a 1987 Indian newspaper account, had demonstrated his machine in Hannover, Germany, before an audience that included 1,500 scientists from around the world. His Space Power Generator (SPG), one of about twenty-five similar machines presented at that conference, supposedly extracts power from the vacuum of space. Though the prototype was said to have been built at the Tarapur Atomic Plant in India, Premanand could find no one in the Department of Science & Technology of the Indian government who knew of Dr. Tewari or his SPG.
In a June 21, 1994, letter (reproduced in Indian Skeptic ), N. A. Janardan Rao, Vice President for R&D and Technology Development of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. in Bangalore, wrote (to the author of a 1994 Indian newspaper article), “Many years ago I had corresponded with Dr. Thiwari [sic] and he had sent me a small book written by him on this subject. I then proceeded to actually design and fabricate a free energy machine. We incurred an expense of more than one hundred thousand rupees and 8 man months in fabricating this unique device. Subsequent testing showed that there was no free energy as claimed; an infinitesimal electrical output was detected which could be attributed entirely to Faraday’s law” (emphasis added).”
So Trombly’s device was indeed the basis of a design for a free energy device that was actually built and…surprise…never worked.
[UPDATE: Since this article was written, there is now a viable question as to whether Mr. Trombly actually built this machine at all, and what it actually does.]
Interestingly enough, we see the “free energy – extraterrestrial” link being promoted in 1990 by the long discredited Richard Hoagland in the writeup by Gary Posner linked above. A search of the thrivemovement web site turns up no mention of Hoagland, however, he is most closely associated with the discredited “face on Mars” claim.
Is there evidence to support the claim that Trombly’s inventions have been suppressed?
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 does allow the government to impose “secrecy orders” on certain sensitive patent applications:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html
However, Trombly has not published the two written gag orders he has claimed to have received. Furthermore, inventors with secrecy orders imposed on their patents are entitled to compensation from the government due to lost revenue: (Constant v. United States, 617 F.2d 239 (Ct. Cl. 1980))
Reference:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/02/022002.html
Trombly makes no mention of ever having sought compensation from the government for his inventions being suppressed. Of course, if the invention never worked in the first place, and the gag orders were imaginary, why would he? It is more likely that the suppression did not take place because Trombly’s machines did not work.
[This section, and rest of the article, by Muertos]
There is no evidence that Trombly’s inventions have been suppressed. First, as we’ve seen, there is no evidence that they actually work. Why would a government or a power company go to the trouble and expense of trying to suppress an invention that is useless in the first place? By logic, therefore, we can already be extremely skeptical that the “suppression” claims are true.
Trombly presents no evidence of suppression. At 36:28 of the Thrive movie, while Trombly is speaking, former President George H.W. Bush is shown on the screen—however, no claim is made that Bush was involved in suppressing Trombly’s work. The sole purpose of introducing Bush is to create a false association in the mind of the viewer that Bush must have had something to do with it. This is innuendo, not fact.
Furthermore, at 39:15 of the film, Trombly blames the “military-industrial complex” for suppressing free energy. About thirty seconds later he says, “The suppression of UFO phenomena is hand in hand with suppression of free energy.” He does not back up these claims. Indeed, the movie next launches into various related claims by Steven Greer, but does not return to claims about the supposed suppression of Trombly’s specific device.
Why, if Trombly could prove that he was being suppressed, does he and the Thrive movie resort to innuendo to make their case? If Trombly’s machine actually worked, it would be easy to prove government suppression. First of all, since he has claimed to have received two “gag orders” about his invention, if he produced these orders it would be strong evidence that the suppression is taking place (and, logically, that there is something worth suppressing). He has not received any gag orders, nor has he applied for economic remuneration as a result of having received them—remuneration to which he is entitled by law. Secondly, if there was any other evidence of suppression, he could add it to the gag orders, thus backing up his claims. Mr. Trombly has not done this.
The issue of the UN/Senate tests
There is another clue that the suppression is not taking place. At 36:24 of the film, Trombly claims that he was invited to demonstrate his generator in front of the U.N. and the United States Senate. Why, if the “powers that be” are so afraid of his machine, would they invite him to present it in front of them? Wouldn’t that be extremely dangerous for them to do, if as Thrive implies these official bodies have a strong vested interest in suppressing devices such as Trombly’s? After all, if his invention actually worked, they’d be stuck, wouldn’t they?
Think about it. If Trombly demonstrated his machine in front of the UN and the Senate and it actually worked, an effort at suppression taking place after the demonstration would be much harder to “sell” in the face of verified evidence of the machine’s operation. Why would the conspirators take this risk? If they weren’t yet sure his machine worked, they would not have to have a demonstration in their open chamber to determine this before they invited him—they could easily send someone out to Trombly’s lab and have him demonstrate the machine to them, and then they would report back to their superiors. Therefore, there is no point in having him demonstrate the machine in front of them if there is any chance that it would make their ultimate aim of suppressing the technology harder rather than easier.
To those who say, “Oh, but they obviously rigged the demonstration precisely to discredit Trombly!”, I reply, first, that there is no evidence of it, and second, that this too would be unnecessarily risky. If the UN and the Senate are afraid that the machine works, and they need to screw around with the conditions of the test to make sure Trombly fails in a public forum, they are exposing themselves to further risk—their efforts at rigging the test might not succeed, and even if they did, others who were there could testify that the test was rigged.
We have already presented evidence (Posner’s fact-checking) that Trombly’s machine never worked to begin with. It makes little sense that conspiratorial forces would exert any effort to suppress a machine that doesn’t work, and no sense at all that, even if they did exert this effort, a key piece of the case demonstrating Trombly’s failure had the potential to backfire publicly and complicate the effort at suppression.
Why, then, would the Senate and the U.N. invite somebody like Adam Trombly to demonstrate in front of them a machine that works on a principle that violates the laws of physics and for which there is no evidence that it actually works?
The answer is quite simple: they’re bending over backwards to demonstrate that they are not suppressing this sort of technology. As you can see from this blog, any rational person certainly has good reason to be skeptical that Trombly’s machine can do what he says it does. However, if you invite Trombly to demonstrate his machine in front of you, even despite this extreme skepticism, you have given him the benefit of every possible doubt. If his machine fails under those conditions, you can be certain that there was nothing there of substance to begin with.
[UPDATE: In light of recent discoveries, it seems likely that the U.S. Senate test in 1989 was in fact a test of a machine that did something totally different than the machine the film claims Mr. Trombly invented supposedly does. Scroll to the end for that update.]
Are Trombly’s claims reliable?
I am not going to spoon-feed an answer to this question to you, the readers of this blog. I invite you to draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind:
- Adam Trombly does not appear to have academic credentials in physics. (If I am wrong about this, and readers can present evidence that he does, I will correct this blog immediately).
- Adam Trombly claims that his machine does something that we believe to be impossible given our current understanding of the laws of physics.
- Trombly’s design was the basis for a machine built in India and investigated, and found not to work at all.
- Trombly has not presented any evidence that his machine actually works.
- Trombly has not presented any evidence that his design has been suppressed by the government and/or business interests.
- In direct logical contradiction to his claim of suppression, he admits he was invited to demonstrate his device in an open forum before some of the very official bodies who are part of the institutions he claims are suppressing him—which would entail considerable risk to the suppression plot, if his claims were true.
None of these six points are absolutely conclusive on their own (though I would argue that points 3 and 4 are pretty close to conclusive). However, all six points together definitely seem to point unmistakably in a certain direction.
I’m sure Adam Trombly is a nice person, and from the movie he seems to be a smart person. I for one would love to have a beer with him and have him explain to me how his device works. On the basis of the evidence I have seen—and the evidence I haven’t seen that I would like to see—I am skeptical that his claims of building working “free energy” devices are correct.
Update 16 March 2012
This article cannot be taken in isolation. Please see this article which presents additional information on Adam Trombly and the claims made in Thrive.
In short, a person, David Farnsworth, has come forward stating that (I) Adam Trombly did not actually build the machine shown in Thrive, which was actually built by David Farnsworth; and (II) that the machine shown in Thrive does something totally different than the movie claims it does–in other words, that it is not in fact a “free energy” or “zero point energy” device. This was the device tested in front of the Senate in 1989 (or possibly 1988), which explains the issue regarding that test–it’s not evidence of government suppression of “free energy” because the device shown, and then allegedly suppressed, was not a “free energy” device to begin with.
Recent Comments
 | vinnie on One Year Later: Thriving No… |
 | Joel T. on Ancient Astronauts–Debun… |
 | tetragrammaton on Ancient Astronauts–Debun… |
 | conspiracykiller on Who Is David Icke? |
 | Dave on Who Is David Icke? |
| conspiracykiller on Who Is Adam Trombly? (UPD… |
 | Sound & Smoke on Who Is Adam Trombly? (UPD… |
| conspiracykiller on Ancient Astronauts–Debun… |
 | M on Ancient Astronauts–Debun… |
| conspiracykiller on Who Is David Icke? |
Thrive Debunked 
Thrive Makers Back Down On “Flower of Life” Claim!
[photo by Ray Flowers]
Debunking and fact-checking of claims in the Thrive movie are already bearing fruit. One of the outrageous claims made in the film is where Nassim Haramein says, at 16:32 of the film, that the “Flower of Life” design at the Osirian Temple in Abydos, Egypt is “burned into the atomic structure of the rock in some extraordinary way!” Neither Haramein nor anyone else provides a single shred of substantiation for this claim.
In context, the “Flower of Life” design is cited by Thrive maker Foster Gamble as being related to the “torus” design that he believes is a signal from extraterrestrials on how to tap free unlimited energy. The claim about the Osirian Temple design is intended to bolster the (false) idea that aliens came to Earth in ancient times and gave this design to various cultures. A debunking of the “Flower of Life” section appears in Part I of the debunking of the full-length film.
Now the Thrive makers have publicly admitted that the claim about the Flower of Life being “burned into the atomic structure of the rock” is false. Recently the “Fact Check” section on the Thrive website was changed to read thusly:
It doesn’t remain an “open mystery” at all. There is absolutely no evidence that the design was “flash-burned” into the stone (whatever that means). The only basis for that claim is the statement in Braden’s book, but note that Haramein even got that wrong: Braden’s statement, at least as quoted by Thrive on the website, makes no reference to the atomic structure. Haramein just made that up.
So, the Thrive makers are already beginning to retreat from their claims. Note also that Haramein’s defense of the false claim is that he was simply quoting another totally unsourced statement, which he got wrong. Greg Braden is a prolific New Age author who likes to make broad sweeping statements about spirituality and consciousness, and has opined before on ancient astronaut theories. I found a review of Awakening to Zero Point on Amazon (here is the link) which has this to say about that book:
Sounds like the usual Thrive material: pseudoscience, unsourced claims, bad history, New Age woo and crankery being passed off as serious research.
Nevertheless, it’s significant that the Thrive makers backed down on this point. I am curious to see what other retractions they will (or will not) make over the coming months.
Thanks to “Sequoia” in the comments on a previous post for bringing the retraction to our attention.